The following article is typical of Political Correctness and the anti-God mentality of many people.
‘The launch of Explorer 1, America’s first satellite, was a pivotal event in American history. After the Russian scare with Sputnik 1 and 2, and the fiery loss of the US Navy’s attempt to launch their Vanguard satellite, the Army succeeded with a JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) satellite blasted into orbit atop Wernher von Braun’s Jupiter-C rocket. Most of the space pioneers from that day, January 31, 1958, have passed on, but one important player remains: Dr Henry Richter. At age 91, he is still sharp and a NASA V.I.P. Earlier this year he spoke at JPL on the 60th anniversary of Explorer 1.
I am honored to consider Dr Richter a very special friend. I took this picture of him on January 30, 2008, the eve of JPL’s 50th Anniversary celebration for Explorer 1. He was speaking in the JPL Library for its ‘JPL Stories’ series, giving his eyewitness account of that fateful month that had catapulted JPL into national fame and led to the birth of NASA. Back in 2003, I had heard Dr William Pickering speak here. Pickering was JPL Director in those days. He died the following year.
Behind him, Dr Richter had supplied numerous photos, documents and charts from his collection. His memory and his research gives his published memoir an exceptional look into the space race. Titled America’s Leap Into Space: My Time at JPL and the First Explorer Satellites,2 Dr Richter’s book is a valuable resource for space historians. And now, on January 31, 2018, he was guest of honor at JPL once again, to speak and sign copies of his book.
How did a man of his eminence get to know little old me? I got a surprise phone call one day about 2006 or 2007. He said he had read some of my articles from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) about astronomy, and wanted to meet me. We set up a time to chat during the lunch hour. When I found out who he was, I nearly fell off my chair! About 78 at the time, Dr Henry Richter was humble and gracious, and told me how he had come to know the Lord after he left the lab, and was now a firm believer in creation. By that 50th Anniversary celebration day in January 2008, we were good friends, and I was glad to see him honored by the lab for his achievements. A few months later, he would be in Washington DC to be honored with all the surviving JPL Directors.
History of a recent kind
Now that you know a little about Dr Henry Richter, let me tell how he came into my story. I used to be Team Leader working on computer systems for NASA’s Cassini project to Saturn. He learned about the trouble I had gotten into in March 2009 for sharing intelligent design DVDs with co-workers. I had told him how my boss yelled at me that I was “pushing religion” and had shouted, “Intelligent design is religion!” He learned how my boss immediately called Human Resources (HR), who began an investigation of me, based on one complaint by a co-worker who had told my boss—but not me—that she “felt harassed” by the DVD. Richter learned that I had been disciplined and demoted a month later, and was given a Written Warning declaring that I had violated JPL’s policies on Unlawful Harassment and its Ethics policy by sharing my “personal views” expressed in the DVDs. He also knew I was pursuing internal remedies but was getting nowhere. On his own initiative, he decided to intervene.
You may have heard how this matter escalated into a court trial in 2012 against JPL, supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Unfortunately, I lost the case when the sitting judge ruled against me with no explanation. The details are explained in Dr Jerry Bergman’s new book, Censoring the Darwin Skeptics (Leafcutter Press, 2018).3
In my court documents (Exhibit 125), there is a private letter Dr Henry Richter had written to the Deputy Director at the time, Gen. Eugene Tattini. Richter was obviously well known by the JPL administrators, and had an especially good relationship with Tattini. Here is what he wrote on June 9:
The David Coppedge matter
Maybe five months ago Mr Coppedge was informed of a complaint against him accusing him of pushing religion at people. David is one of us that believes the Universe is no accident, call it Intelligent Design or Creation.
It has been my experience that David does not push ideas or dogma. What he does is to have a supply of DVDs such as The Privileged Planet, Ben Stein’s Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, and others when asked for them. His offer of materials is done off line, not during business activities. Someone was evidently offended by his practice and a complaint was filed. David has tried to go through the JPL HR policies as to what is acceptable, and to find his recourse at this point. Listening to him, the HR people do not seem to understand even their own policies. For example, there is an appeal process, but no one in HR knows how to file it.
He has essentially been demoted. He says there are no complaints about his technical work on the Cassini Mission. The accusation is one of violating political correctness. His Section Chief has had a couple meetings with him, but it seems like the meeting was “because he was supposed to,” not anything with substance. I feel a real injustice is going on. An incident such as this would not have happened when I was employed at the Lab, but this is a new political scene. It seems freedom of speech and action do not apply universally.
A plea for a fair hearing
“Well,” you may be thinking. “This had to make an impression on JPL’s top brass! HR investigator Huntley and her bosses probably stood up and took notice of this!” It would be like receiving a statement from John Glenn or Wernher von Braun. To think so, however, would be to underestimate the intolerance of JPL for political incorrectness. Notice that Dr Richter was not asking for favors for a friend, but for justice. So what notice did this hot letter receive?
Undoubtedly Tattini was alarmed when he read it. Richter told me he knew about the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which documents persecution of Darwin doubters and ID supporters, and liked its narrator, Ben Stein. But he did what administrators typically do: keep out of departmental business and let them do their jobs. At document discovery over a year later, we found out what happened to the letter. The HR manager scribbled on it, saying, simply, “Tattini received this letter. No action necessary. Just add it to Coppedge file.” On they went, continuing to violate my rights and their own policies. The outcome—the investigation, lawsuit, firing, trial and loss—I have documented in previous posts on my blog.4 Not even a NASA V.I.P could help me.’ https://creation.com/nasa-vip?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=Fired+for+discussing+Intelligent+Design+at+work%21&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=AU+Fortnightly+Digest+-+2018.07.06
Abortion is the murder of the unborn plain and simple! Sadly, New South Wales National party MP Trevor Khan is in step with Labor Party MP P G Sharpe in sponsoring the following bill.
“Public Health Amendment (Safe Access to Reproductive Health Clinics) Bill 2018 b2017-081.d10
This explanatory note relates to this Bill as introduced into Parliament.
This Bill is co-sponsored by the Hon P G Sharpe MLC and the Hon T J Khan MLC.
Overview of Bill
The object of this Bill is to provide for safe access zones around reproductive health clinics at which abortions are provided so as to protect the safety and well-being of, and respect the privacy and dignity of, those accessing the services provided at those premises as well as those who need to access those premises in the course of their employment.
Outline of provisions
Clause 1 sets out the name (also called the short title) of the proposed Act.
Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the proposed Act on the date of assent to the
Schedule 1 Amendment of Public Health Act 2010 No 127
Schedule 1 inserts the following provisions into the Public Health Act 2010:
(a) Proposed section 98A inserts definitions used in the proposed Part. The term safe access zone is defined to mean the premises of a reproductive health clinic at which abortions are provided and the area within 150 metres of any part of the premises of a reproductive health clinic at which abortions are provided or of a pedestrian access point to a building that houses a reproductive health clinic at which abortions are provided.
(b) Proposed section 98B specifies the objects of the proposed Part.
(c) Proposed section 98C makes it an offence for a person who is in a safe access zone to:
(i) interfere with any person accessing, leaving, or attempting to access or leave, any
reproductive health clinic at which abortions are provided, or (ii) obstruct or block a footpath or road leading to any reproductive health clinic at which
abortions are provided.
In each case, the maximum penalty for the first offence is 50 penalty units (currently
$5,550) or imprisonment for 6 months, or both, and the maximum penalty for any second or subsequent offence is 100 penalty units (currently $11,000) or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
(d) Proposed section 98D makes it an offence for a person who is in a safe access zone to
communicate in relation to abortions in a manner that is able to be seen or heard by a person accessing, leaving, attempting to access or leave, or inside, a reproductive health clinic at which abortions are provided and that is reasonably likely to cause distress or anxiety to any such person. The maximum penalty for the first offence is 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both, and the maximum penalty for any second or subsequent offence is 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
(e) Proposed section 98E makes it an offence for a person to:
(i) intentionally capture visual data of another person, without that other person’s
consent, if that other person is in a safe access zone, or
(ii) publish or distribute a recording of another person without that other person’s
consent if the recording was made while that other person was in a safe access zone
and contains particulars likely to lead to the identification of that other person.
The maximum penalty for the first offence is 50 penalty units or imprisonment for
6 months, or both, and the maximum penalty for any second or subsequent offence is
100 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
(f) Proposed section 98F provides that the proposed Part does not apply so as to prohibit
conduct occurring in or around a church or other building ordinarily used for religious
worship or outside Parliament House in Macquarie Street, Sydney or to prohibit the
carrying out of any survey or opinion poll by or with the authority of a candidate, or the
distribution of any handbill or leaflet by or with the authority of a candidate, during the
course of a Commonwealth, State or local government election, referendum or plebiscite.
The provision also provides that the proposed Part applies despite anything to the contrary in other statutory provisions about public assemblies or protests.” https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3508/XN%20Public%20Health%20Amendment%20(Safe%20Access%20to%20Reproductive%20Health%20Clinics)%20Bill%202018.pdf
I wrote my local National Pary MP and here is his sad and shoddy response.
“This bill is a cross member bill, not a government bill and in recognition of the nature of this issue, government members will be free to exercise a conscience vote when it comes before the Legislative Assembly.
It is also important to consider the legal right individuals have in this state, and that is the right to free movement without fear of intimidation or harassment.”
Guess who will not get this vote next election! These politicians know that no one worth their salt would physically hinder or harm someone intent on killing their baby but rather seek to give counsel or pray with or for those going into these chambers of horror if given the opportunity.
It is disturbing to know that a member of the once conservative National Party is co-sponsoring such a bill. The National Party says on its own website:
“We believe in freedom of speech, movement and philosophy; freedom of religious activity, association and assembly; and equality and justice for all before the law.
We believe the family is the basis of a strong and stable society.” https://www.nswnationals.org.au/constitution/
Hypocrisy to say the least!