Births are necessary for a vibrant America. Mirroring Europe's recent trend, America's birth rate is declining and threatens our national security and global economic superiority. Everything that hinders our ability to maintain a healthy birth rate is an indirect attack on America's future.

Many factors influence birth-rates including the number of healthy, man/woman marriages. From a policy viewpoint, pro-family policies are necessary to secure the future of America. Where marriage is under attack, America is under attack.

Not only is gay marriage an attack on America, the failures of traditional marriage are just as guilty. This clip summarizes some of the issues:

Frankly, I'm not sensitive when it comes to terrorists; if we kill them all, the world will be a better place. Hizbolla are terrorists regardless of whether they are in Middle East or North America. Those who choose to identify with them should be jailed, at least. So, when they wrote to the FBI asking for a tolerant sensitivty, I wasn't very generous:

Leaders of American Muslim and Arab groups urged the FBI on Wednesday to be sensitive when scrutinizing activities by the Hizbullah on US soil.

Twenty-five groups, including the Islamic Society of North America and the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, urged FBI Director Robert Mueller in a letter to instruct field offices and agents to avoid unwarranted profiling and to respect legal protections during questioning.

“We want the FBI, obviously, to protect our nation from those who do us harm, but we want them to focus on actual credible evidence of wrongdoing and not target people based on their ethnicity or religion or . . . political expression,” said Farhana Khera, head of Muslim Advocates, the lead drafter of the letter.

“We want to avert any kind of raw fishing expedition-type initiative,” he said.

Khera, whose group is the charitable arm of the 500-plus-member National Association of Muslim Lawyers, said activists decided to send the letter after learning that the FBI has increased its focus on the worldwide activities of Hizbullah after the group’s kidnapping of two IDF soldiers and subsequent Mideast fighting.

Ht: LGF

The question about whether Bush should or should not support embryonic stem cell research is really about one thing: Abortion. The question that you must answer is not whether we want medical advances in research. The question is, "Does life begin at conception?"

30 years ago, lawyers in black robes arbitrarily broke pregnancy into three trimesters. This horrible decision is punctuated by their invention of the 'trimesters.' They said, life really doesn't begin until somewhere near the end of pregnancy.

Now, we have politics and the public who want to say that life begins somewhere between conception and the middle--somewhere. What kind of logic is that? What kind of sense does that make?

Either life has value beginning at conception or it has no value at all.

Not many words are necessary, nor would their increase more fully express the thoughts of gratitude that I have for the military.

Dating back to our rebellion against the tyranny of kings, under the banner that we each possesses inherent nobility, many brave men and women have fought for liberty and freedom. Some have sacrificed their lives for this cause.

No one likes to die or see death; but we want our country to survive. When these two, deeply held values come into conflict, the bravest among us join the military to hunt down those who threaten our peace. When the choice must be made between our death or our enemies, I'm glad that United States Military is finest and most capable fighting force to have ever walked on Earth.

In a world gone crazy, I can sleep at night because the soldier is watching out for my family. When psychotic Islamicists plan to fly planes into buildings, seek to build nuclear weapons, and believe that with chaos they usher in the end times, I don't fear the day because our military is on the hunt.

Thank you.

You'll notice that I've added the blogroll of like minded individuals under the banner "blue star". The blue star symbolizes those who have loved ones in harm's danger. The blue star is a symbol of love, patience, and hope. It is the symbol of the patriot's greatest love and devotion to America. With this reminder of their absence, will not forget the sacrifice of our nation's families.

I'm thankful for those willing to express their appreciation and proudly display links to their blogs.

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington, an otherwise liberal state, handed over another victory for traditional marriage when they upheld Washington's ban on gay marriage saying lawmakers can restrict marriage to a man and woman.

This makes traditional marriage, state victory number 6 in just over 3 weeks.

In a 5-4 decision, the State Supreme Court kept the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law in tact regardless of the 19 couples seeking to abolish it via judicial fiat. These judges said that states can restrict the definition of marriage through the people's legislators.

Let me say it one more time, MARRIAGE IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT, like that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The government recognition of marriage through the licensing process provides benefits to a married couple. Why would Uncle Sam provide benefits? The government has a selfish motivation, and intrinsic interest. Happily married couples make healthy children; healthy children contribute to a healthy, vibrant society. The best way for the government to attain a healthy, vibrant, growing society is to provide incentives for marriage. The reason the government provides benefits to encourage marriages is that the establishment of a healthy progeny is the nation's most significant role.

The government should not care about preferences for gay sex. If it is not the government’s role to approve or disapprove of gay and lesbian sexual habits. The government simply has no incentive to recognize homosexual marriage? None.

Related Tags: Gay Marriage, Homosexual Marriage

All the liberal blogs are buzzing with activity over this news story: the Religious Left is attempting to organize against the Religious Right.

This does not inspire fear.

The left's number one value is tolerance. Accompanying tolerance, they speak of validating everyone's personal perspective. With this relativism, they lack the ability to provide a cogent argument or statement of beliefs. Their major problem is that relativism does not align itself with reality. Once a truth claim is made, it immediately excludes all opposite claims.

They want to take a stand against the Right, but how can do they do that without violating their number one value?

When all opinions are equally valid, as they claim, Jim can stand up and make a claim opposite to Tom; who is to decide? The Religious Right says, the Bible; with no moral absolutes, the Religious Left flounders in their inability to agree. Relativism is not a sustainable, tenable position.

Two examples, the NY Times speaks of the Spiritual Activism Conference with these words, "the biggest barrier for liberals may be their regard for pluralism: for letting people say what they want, how they want to, and for trying to include everyone's priorities rather than choosing two or three issues that could inspire a movement." Of course they can't agree. At least democrats have the value of gaining power; the SAC can't even determine what values they are building their agenda upon.

Example two, Chuck Colson, founder of Breakpoint and religious leftist (as I remember), says this of the SAC, "Never mind even setting policy goals; some conference members were afraid that singing hymns might be enough to upset some members. Instead of coming away with a clear set of objectives, the conference members mostly came away frustrated." HYMNS, traditional songs of the Christian faith, had the potential to offend--so they just didn't sing anything.

I am sooo not worried about the activism of the religious left because they are not really preaching a political message; they are preaching the message that the religious right is too morally conservative. The right is too Biblically based--and they don't like it. They have simply been personally offended by the exclusive moral claims of the right based and want to whine about it.

More thoughts here.

Eugene Robinson, in yesterdays's WaPo, argues that Israel's strategy for winning is a detriment to its cause because it is disproportionate; Richard Cohen's observation shows the extent to which Eugene lacks creativity,

"Just limiting the search to newspapers and magazines of the last week will turn up "more than 1,000 documents....It includes, of course, the United Nations and its secretary general, Kofi Annan. It also includes a whole bunch of European newspapers whose editorial pages call for Israel to respond [proportionally]"

Proportionality is weak-minded and detached from the reality of our struggle; it threatens our ability to win this war on terror.

Hizbollah, Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the other Islamofacists, are enemies of a peaceful Israel; and, they will not stop until she no longer exists. Let me assure Eugene and other proportionalists that tutoring Osama on the logical reasons for a cease fire is not going to work. Osama speaks one language, the language of power. Operating in an authoritarian culture, the only response that they will understand is overwhelming military might.

In this world wide conflict, half measures and proportionality belong to academic theory--not to the field of battle.

David Ignatius' most interesting column in the Washington Post reveals the potential compromises from a coming negotiated settlement. I was hopeful until I slowly realized what Ignatius states, "Hezbollah's military power would be severely degraded under such a negotiated settlement, but it would remain intact politically." To be sure, we will be fighting this battle in the future once Hezbollah has rearmed (in fact, CSM says we are doing just this now).

This is our chance to win; if we choose not to accept this high calling it will be because we did not understand the challenge or we were unwilling to sacrifice for our progeny. The former may be closer to reality than the latter, though I fear both. I join with Tony Blankley in calling for high profile hearings in all branches of government and a coordinated public relations campaign until Americans and the West realize that we are fighting in a battle for civilization. We are fighting for our right to exist.

As long as terrorists remain committed to converting the world to Islamofacism by attacking Jews and Christains, why not use the overwhleming military might that we have? If we are to err, let's err to secure a peaceful future for our children through the use of force.

There is a peace that can only be found on the other side of war. In this war, peace can only be acheived through overwhelming military domination. Those advocating negotiation, half-measures, and proportionality hinder our apprehension of success. We must not fear the pursuit of victory; but we must apprehend it. Total victory is the only option worthy of pursuing.

Hillary Clinton, taking the reigns from Howard Dean in the DNC, has rolled out the American Dream Initiative to nationalize the election and unite the DNC.

So, here's the plan: Say, "Republicans favor the rich while leaving the middle-class behind." No points for originality. Democrats, if the ADI means anything substantive at all, want to increase the miniumum wage, provide universal health care, and distribute wealth according to their priorities.

Whose wealth? Yours.

"What are their priorities?" I'm glad you asked. They've recently rolled out their 5-point plan for redefining marriage; they want to throw more money at education--that's right more, have no ethical boundaries on experimental science, and give away $500 of your hard earned tax dollars to every child born as an welfare entitlement--a "social security for the young".

In the final analysis, we all know that regaining power is behind any new Democrat marketing campaign; I'm young and already I'm sick of hearing how about class warfare. While "more of the same" may unite the DNC, it'll drive folks like me away; even Democrats can't contest the 5.4 million new jobs since 2003.

Why does this make news?

Three major gay-rights groups are taking out full-page advertisements starting Tuesday in 50 newspapers nationwide declaring their determination to keep fighting for same-sex marriage rights despite recent court setbacks (source).

I take this as one more evidence that the gay-marriage movement is floundering. Spending $250,000 to tell others that you are going to keep spending money? Perhaps, it will rally the glbt morale after suffering such severe setbacks in 5 states and every public opinion poll--ever.
Linked by the folks at Real Clear Politics. Thanks.

So the Wash. Times comes out talking about how the conservative base is excited about the 'values votes' that have been occuring in Congress:

The Republican base is being rejuvenated...by a flurry of congressional action on "values" issues such as marriage safeguards, flag protection and abortion restrictions, as well as President Bush's veto last week of stem-cell legislation (source).

Speak for yourself. Marriage protection failed in both Republican controlled houses and embryonic stem cells passed--both downers. Flag protection, I mean really, how important is it in our world? And abortion restrictions, well, I suppose anyone could pass an abortion restriction if you made it exclusive enough; ie., a bill that makes it illegal to move three states away, jump four times, and skip like a fairy to the abortion clinic.

So, the democrats respond:

"Democrats, however, note that nationwide polls show the top concerns of Americans are the war in Iraq, terrorism, immigration, the economy and gas prices (source)."

If Republicans want to make this social conservative happy, succeed in passing conservative legislation, pass solutions to America's toughest problems. Work for your money and get things done. Unfortunately, significance in their recent actions is hard to find.

Are we approaching Armageddon? On last night’s Paula Zahn, she featured Christians who were “excited” about the war in the Middle East because it is viewed as a sign of the end of the age. Are they just looney? (Well, perhaps Paula is looney as she compared Christians to Waco's David Koresh and Hitler--come on!)

Here’s what we know

We know that the Middle East, specifically Israel, is going to be at the center of it all during the last days.

The Bible talks extensively about a re-gathering of the people of Israel. Is this happening? I don’t know. I see this and I think yes; then I remember that New York is the second largest deposit of Jews outside of Israel.

The Bible says in Matthew that the signs of the end of the age would be “wars and rumors of wars…famines, earthquakes…increased persecution…the love of most will grow cold”.

The Bible says in Zechariah that all the nations of the Earth will be gathered against Israel, and the Lord will completely destroy those who fight against her.

Also in Zechariah, the Bible says that many will “look on [b] me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” Christians look at this and think of Jesus.


Here’s what we don’t know

We really don’t know whether this is just another skirmish like the many previous battles or whether this one will lead to the end.

We know that natural disasters are a result of the fall of man, but we don’t know whether they are increasing in a way that points to the ends times.

Matthew says that no one knows when it the end will occur, only God the Father. In fact, we are so ignorant that we will just be going about our daily routine (getting married, eating, and drinking) when, boom, Jesus will come back. This is a description as well as a warning.

So, while we must beware of the person who says definitively that we are at the end of the age, we must nevertheless prepare our souls for it.

When does a television show become worthy of contacting its advertisers because of its filth. How about this? In the opening teaser of FX's Rescue Me:

* Tommy (main character) is raped by his ex wife.
* In another scene, homosexual character Mike has sex with two women to get back at his boyfriend after a 'lover's spat' at a bar.
* Tommy is raped by another women after being drugged.

What about language? Is any language worth reacting to? How about this:

Profanity a total of 104 in one hour:
* 's' word - 28 times
* God's name in vain - 31 times
* a-- - 15 times
* sexually-related profanities - 17
* other profanities - 13 "

And this is only 1 (ONE) episode.

Well, I agree with the AFA and say 'yes'. That's why I have several links to the right; opportunities for you to use the power of your email account to change the world for the better. Join Me. Join Us. Take less than 5 minutes. Change the world.

Is there no age too young, no child too innocent to indoctrinate with homosexual propaganda? I get so angry at these activists who want to scar children with their alternative views of sexuality--come on, a 3 year old? It almost makes me want to cuss.

Children as young as three should be taught about same-sex relationships in a bid to stamp out homophobia in schools, it was claimed yesterday.

The National Union of Teachers, the country's largest teaching union, sparked outrage by demanding that nursery staff help to educate children about gay families. source

What does sexual preference have to do with the education of students? Come on! Nothing.

It's really a genius agenda of the homosexual activists. Destroy the consciences of children now so that when their parents try to teach right from wrong they rebel against them, "No mom, my teacher said that all sorts of families exist."

Who is going to take responsibility for a child's rebellion against their parents? Sure, implement your agenda; but homosexual activists going to adopt these confused children when they screw up their lives? Or, perhaps, when they say, "Oh, I'd like to try sex; I've heard about it since I was three. It can't be too bad," and get a disease? Is NTU, NEA, or PFLAG going to be there then?

I was an idiot today. I took my car to a shop because my check engine light came on. I waited for 45 minutes before they looked at my car--I didn't mind I had a great history book. The problem: my gas cap wasn't screwed on tight enough. I watched him; literally, "the repair" took 3 minutes.

I thought, I'm not going to say anything; I'm going to give him the opportunity to practice integrity. Let's see what kind of character he has. Here's how it went down:

"That'll be $88"

"Really, what was the problem?" I said.

"Let me check...your fuel line cap needed to be, the distributor was causing evaporation causing a sensor to become active? The engine diagnostic came out fine. It was tightened, your system was checked out, and no further sensors are active."

Integrity test failed.

"88$? Huh. I'll pay the money, but let me tell you what I saw. I saw a man tighten a gas cap. He didn't raise the hood or do any type of engine diagnostic."

"Uh, let me talk to my manager....That'll be $44."

"Fine."

Where are men and women of character? If he would have come out and said, "Listen, you're gas cap was loose. I'll only charge you for the labor," he would have had a loyal, lifetime customer. He didn't.

Confusing man, indeed. He hosts a fundraiser for Hillary, then says, he cannot see himself supporting her for president. Not only this, but then take completely opposite positions than her on some important social issues:

"I'm not on the extreme right on abortion, in terms of a [US] constitutional amendment. I think everyone's against abortion." Who should decide when an abortion should take place? "Individual states and individual people."

As for gay marriage: "I believe it is wrong. I'm considered homophobic and crazy about these things and old fashioned. But I think that the family - father, mother, children - is fundamental to our civilisation."

I don't get him.

Tony Snow apologized today for calling ESCR (Embryonic Stem Cell Research) murder saying, he had overstated the president's position (source). I've got no qualm with using that term, but then again I'm pro-life.

If life begins at conception, ESCR is abortion; a form of murder. Can anyone point out a substantive difference between a 3 day old, 3 week old, 3 month old, and 3 year old? At which point does the fetus become human? At which point does it have value?

Those who distinguish between the born and unborn parse words until they no longer have meaning. If ESCR is not wrong, then nothing is wrong with anything.


UPDATE:
Did you know that the EU has the same position as Bush on ESCR?

The European Union agreed on Monday to permit limited use of EU funds for research involving human embryonic stem cells provided it does not entail destroying embryos, preserving the status quo. (source)

Thanks Penraker. Didn't see CNN making that comparison last week.

I'd like to take a moment to give hops to each of the 84, H.R. 1079 co-sponsors. This bill is named after Holly Patterson who died after taking RU-486, the morning-after pill.

If passed, the FDA must suspend its approval for mifepristone and conduct an analysis of the approval process for the drug. Currently, it's in committee.

Take a moment and sign the petition to your right asking your Representatives to act.

These have already signed on as co-sponsors:
Rep. BARTLETT Of Maryland; Rep. HALL, Rep. WICKER, Rep. MILLER Of Florida, Rep. NORWOOD, Rep. SMITH Of New Jersey, Rep. WAMP, Rep. PITTS, Rep. CHABOT, Rep. BLACKBURN, Rep. BAKER, Rep. FORBES, Rep. WELDON Of Florida, Rep. ROGERS Of Alabama, Rep. SHIMKUS, Rep. JO ANN DAVIS Of Virginia, Rep. DAVIS Of Kentucky, Rep. AKIN, Rep. HART, Rep. GINGREY, Rep. PICKERING, Rep. KING Of Iowa, Rep. RYUN Of Kansas, Rep. MUSGRAVE, Rep. ADERHOLT, Rep. INGLIS Of South Carolina, Rep. DAVIS Of Tennessee, Rep. RENZI, Rep. JONES Of North Carolina, Rep. STEARNS, Rep. CANTOR, Rep. MCCOTTER, Rep. MYRICK, Rep. BEAUPREZ, Rep. FRANKS Of Arizona, Rep. PENCE, Rep. SAM JOHNSON Of Texas, Rep. TERRY, Rep. TIBERI, Rep. DOOLITTLE, Rep. ROGERS Of Kentucky, Rep. SOUDER, Rep. BROWN Of South Carolina, Rep. KENNEDY Of Minnesota, Rep. BOOZMAN, Rep. WHITFIELD, Rep. FOXX, And Rep. EMERSON

Sitting, sipping coffee, and perusing my newly found Feedreader 3.05 (the best free invention known to bloggers), I came across Jabari Asim's article on personal responsibility within the black community. I appreciated the good news held within it, and it got me thinking as to the biggest problems facing our youth.

They are growing up without dads, in failing schools, and in a world of terror. Our young people have everything, yet they have nothing. I'd like to suggest that America's inability to pass along the virtue of respect is our greatest failure: personal respect, respect for others, and respect for property.

One example: within four clicks, I can have unlimited access to online sex. And, we are not just talking about the 'professionals' who sell their identity to Hugh Hefner. Countless numbers of young adults have prostituted their innocence, bodies, and sexuality.

Webcams are the tool of choice for young adults lacking self-respect. Within a few minutes, a teenager can become a prostitute with the idea that somehow popularity, money, and fame that follows is the solution to all of their problems.

Or consider the viewer; what kind of self-respect does it take to sit in front of the computer, investing thousands of hours and hundred of dollars to purchase subscriptions to sites. What a low view of sexuality and self-respect the viewer of such filth must have.

We can sit pretty all day talking about the theoretical solutions of pornography, our founders intentions for the first amendment, and internet restrictions; meanwhile, how many more young adults will prostitute themselves.

Does the person who has self-respect, respect for their innocence, privacy, bodies, and sexuality? I can imagine so.

The Massachusetts couple whose relationship led the way for legalized gay marriage in that state, has split up. Does their relationship parallel the larger failure of the gay marriage movement?

The latest Rasmussen Report has some interesting facts, but nothing new:

68% of Likely Voters take the traditional approach and define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that only 29% believe marriage can be the union of any two people.

Or consider the latest court rulings in Connecticut, Nebraska, New York, Georgia, Tennessee; all victories for traditionalists.

Or consider the outcry when The Advocate published the larger agenda of the homosexual marriage movement: anything goes, including polygamy.

Despite these recent events, I'm not optimistic. What society has ever maintained morality when such a large group supported its redefinition?

Several other upcoming court decisions, including the state of Washington, may turn the tide in the other direction. Additionally, our Congress has failed to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment for the fourth time in 2 years.

"Alan Keyes: A truly presidential veto:

'Surely,' say the demagogues, 'an embryo in a Petri dish can't be compared to a 10-year-old girl. They are materially quite different.' But as the 10-year-old differs materially from the embryo, so the distinguished scientist with an IQ of 176 differs from the 10-year-old. As a matter of fact, the potential of the 10-year-old can't measure up to the proven achievements of the adult. Our sense of justice isn't based on their material condition, but on a moral principle that asserts the worth of every human being, regardless of material condition. If we abandon that principle because an embryo is not as materially developed as a 10-year-old, what shall we say when someone points out that we are not as materially developed as the scientist whose knowledge may save thousands, or the general whose skills are needed to defend millions. Will we accept the judgment that our claims of right are irrelevant because our betters have developed the material know-how and means to benefit or destroy us?"

HT: BirthStory

The NY Times reports that Saddam Hussein has written a letter to America asking for its withdraw from Iraq. Many here and here have opined that the DNC actually provided the talking points upon which Saddam wrote his plea.

While it is still a preliminary finding, RightFaith has learned that Cynthia McKinney has been missing from Congress and her debates recently because she actually hand delievered the Arabic typewriter upon which Saddam wrote the letter. If you look closely at the typewriter she delivered, you'll notice the White House seal on the back right side. Thus, McKinney has been acting on behalf the White House, specifically Karl Rove who planted the typewriter, so that Saddam would write his letter just time for the DNC to look like idiots just prior to the November Elections.

Geesh, sometimes I even amaze myself.

UPDATE
But the real question I have is why the White House has an Arabic typewriter. I don't know, but I have it on good sources that the President Himself is actually in control of OPEC and he is making millions from the recent hike in oil prices and the crisis in the Middle East.

*****
Ok, if this is your first read at RightFaith, welcome; this is satirical post and not meant to be taken seriously.

I'm posting this in honor of the US's successful missle test and because I have other things to be working on today in addition to blogging but still want to make your visit to RightFaith worth your time. I came across this rather alternative expression of America's frustration, military dominance, and our willingness to act. It was a rather unique, powerful combination of messagess. Enjoy.

If you've got a blog post to share let me know and I'll take a look. I'll link generously to blogs later. I am feeling especially generous to pro-American posts; but most anything will do.

I do feel bad that an American company has lost so much, but perhaps they shouldn't be promoting licentiousness.

Perhaps the boycott of Ford is having its intended effect, no?

Recently, I wrote a letter (along with other social conservatives; via AFA) regarding T-Mobile's sponsorship of FX's promotion of obscenity and vulgarity. Here is the President's response to me.

Dear Jeff,

As President and CEO of T-Mobile, it is my responsibility to ensure that everything we do lines up with the qualities of our brand and what our company represents.

Recently, you sent me an e-mail inquiring about T-Mobile’s stance on placing ads on programming deemed to be inappropriate.

Our company has a longstanding policy that prohibits such advertising on TV stations or any other media carrying programming or content deemed to be offensive.

This e-mail is an effort on my part to communicate with you directly on this topic with honest and straightforward answers to your questions. Additionally, I want to apologize to you and other interested parties because – after reviewing personally some of the complaints brought to my attention – I do believe we could have acted more quickly to address what are clearly legitimate concerns.

As one of the country’s leading providers of wireless communication services to young people and families, we understand we have a powerful opportunity to make a positive difference in the lives of our customers.

For this reason, we continue to set specific standards for ourselves around what content we think T-Mobile should be affiliated with – both as a content provider and as a major advertiser across multiple media.

Our current policy guidelines make it clear that the content we provide and the programming supported by our advertising dollars must not conflict with the qualities of T-Mobile’s brand.

This means we will not support programming or content offerings that are sexually gratuitous and explicit, racist, hateful or excessively violent.

As a result of communication from you and others, I have personally taken the time to view some of the programs in question where we have run advertising. Candidly, some of the choices we have made are clearly inconsistent with who we are and what we stand for.

As a result, we are taking the following immediate actions:

In addition to removing advertising from programs brought to our attention, effective immediately, we are pulling all advertising from the FX Channel pending further review of their programming

I have directed my marketing and advertising leads to conduct a deeper review of our advertising standards to ensure that our selections are consistent with the qualities of T-Mobile’s brand

T-Mobile aspires to connect young people and families with those who matter most – all in an effort to help our customers lead richer and more fulfilling lives.

We will remain vigilant to ensure that our services, and our advertising dollars, are managed in such a way that they are always consistent with our brand and what we stand for as a company.

Thank you for taking the time to communicate with me on this topic. Your voice is heard and we are taking corrective action.

Robert Dotson

ACLU Website:

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND -- A United Nations human rights body expressed grave concerns today about the record of human rights in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union with a delegation of 10 and working with a broad coalition of other groups is in Geneva to monitor the examination of the United States the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC).

In a two-day session that concluded today, the committee members pressured the United States for answers on the following issues:

The sentencing of children to life without parole and the disproportionate incarceration of minorities;
The militarization of the border;
The failure to prevent human rights violations and respond in a non-discriminatory manner to Hurricane Katrina;
The failure to end racial profiling practices, specifically the profiling of South Asian convenience store employees in Georgia;
Warrantless spying on ordinary Americans;
The abuse of women in prison; and
The indefinite detention, rendition and torture of non-citizens.

“The U.S. should be ashamed of itself,” said Ann Beeson, Director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “The review by the Human Rights Committee was a stark and all too accurate condemnation of the state of rights in America.”

No, the ACLU should be ashamed of itself. The review by the Human Rights Committee which includes member states Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China, and ensures that violaters are included, is a joke and nowhere near accurate.

Jim Hoft has covered this well. Religious persecutors, Womens Rights violators, Communist Regimes, and illegal organ harvesters will make up the new UN Human Rights Council.

And this is the organization that the ACLU want to hold the U.S. accountable to? The ACLU, and the U.N. are the two most dangerous organizations in the world. They are both seeking to destroy America’s credibility and soverignty. The U.N. are a corrupt joke when it comes to human rights, and they have absolutely zero credibility to make any judgement on America in that area.

The ACLU, who provided the list called "Dimming the Beacon of
Freedom", to this corrupt organization that can't even clean up its own
human rights violations are an embarrassement to this great nation. It
is shameful that their list included our efforts to spy on the enemy,
protect our borders, and several other accusations without evidence. I
also wonder if their accusation to "abuse" of women in prison would be
not providing them with abortions at the expense of taxpayers.

Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation's sovereignty and national security.

For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, "With today's action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations." Source

Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.

All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn't directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU's embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.

In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add "sexual orientation" to the UNHRC's discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a "showdown with religion," clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source

The ACLU's actions are a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, religious exercise, security, and soverignity. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.

If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs...why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America's freedoms, and our very soverignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU's vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churchs and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them. To many Americans, these sound more like human rights violations than anything on the ACLU's list.

On October 27, 1787, Alexander Hamilton predicted that a “dangerous ambition” would one day tyrannize the gangling young American Republic, all the while lurking “behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.” It could almost be said that Hamilton had a prophecy of the ACLU.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board. Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

That's right, on behalf of 20,000 inmates, the ACLU is suing for the right to have murderers look at pornography in prison--a privilege recently taken away possibly due to inmate violence or sexual crimes.

In another recent case, Americans United (AU; the ACLU sister) saw that a faith-based group was removed from a state prison because it was too much like proselytizing.

Secular humanist are pro-porn and anti-Christian. I suppose their goal is a bunch of horny athiests. Imagine if the ACLU and AU maintained opposite positions; prisons might be full of reformed inmates who were disciplined Christians. Isn't changing prisoners from murders to non-murderers a good thing?

Thanks for the Link: The Conservative Spread

The Advocate, a national gay magazine has recently featured a cover story on gay polygamous relationships. "Polygamy & Gay Men: Dirty laundry or sexual freedom? How gay men handle multiple partners," describes the lives of several trios of males who consider themselves married to each other (link).

The GLBT community was outraged that their leading magazine, the Advocate, would broach this issue in the same week that the Federal Marriage Amendment was voted upon. What is most interesting is their response. Many were concerned about the timing: "one thing at a time," was their argument.

What I found most interesting is that their justification for marriage defined it into nothingness. They have such disregard for marriage, that they define it into oblivion. It is like their goal is to get married only to be right, because it doesn't mean anything anyway. You decide for yourself.

I've listed some of the responses that were written to The Advocate:

WARNING: NOT FOR THE SENSITIVE READER

Gary
We have to show that we are comitted to "traditional relationships" before we introduce something that is radical to the "ULTRA CONSERVATIVE". I do not have a problem with any relationship if it works for those involved "WHO CARES" but for the rest of the country it may be to radical for them to accept just yet .

Anonymous
One thing at a time. Our country progresses in very small steps....

derekxxx
I'm happily and legally married in Massachusettes to a great guy, and we still enjoy playing with other guys. Marriage does not mean monogamy. That is a Straight myth...

Steve LaVigne
Variations on relationships are not new. If we feel we will be embarrassed or thought of badly because of any type of relationship then it is our own insecurity. Marriage is and always has been a contract, not a lifestyle...

Anonymous
We have to stop thinking that the only acceptable relationship is a monogamous romantic heterosexual-style one, and that to achieve equal rights GLBT people need to conform to heteronormative rules. Poligamy, or better yet, polyamorous relationships should be recognized and protected as much as monogamous relationships. Why should we be restricted in whom to love and how? We need instead to stand united in the diversity of querr relationships and gain rights for all of us.

Matt R. (DE)
There is nothing wrong with Polyamorus relationships. However, from a strategic standpoint, I don't know that pushing for this and raising awareness of this right now is the best thing to do. We are trying to get marriage equality and I think that it's best we focus on that first. Once we have marriage equality, then we can talk about the other stuff. As a community we really need to pick our battles and focus on 1 at a time. As far as Polygamy is concerned, who you love and how many you love is not anyones decesion but your own and those of the consenting adults involved. It is possible to be intimate with multiple people and feel equally the same for them. It's been going on for generations and will continue to do so going forward and like interracial marriage and eventually gay marriage, things will change. How can we as the minority in the gay marriage situation sit and cast judgement on people within our own group?

Loraine Hutchins
LGBT folk have always loved more than one, openly and honestly, some of us, and we need to fight for ALL forms of family, not just one.

victor
To be honest, having multiple boyfriends might be quite fun..........

Anonymous
Unfortunately !!! Adding polygamy to the fight for marriage equality right now would just add fuel to conservatives arsenal. Eventually it will need to be put on the table. ~Bill

Taylor
I believe that bringing up the idea of polygamy may be asking for a bit much...

Anonymous
I support marriage rights for anyone who has a consenting adult relationship, no matter how many people are involved. We need to support all kinds of families...

Michele
I can't stand the hypocrisy of the gay community. We support gay marriage because people who love each other should be permitted to marry. Then we say that if it is 3-men or 3-women that love one another, we cannot permit that - thus we are saying we accept denying gays marriage, just because they are a 3-some. This stinks of utter hypocrisy.

An Outraged Humanitarian
On what grounds does anyone here have to deny three men (or three women) from having a legally recognized marriage?

Patti
If we don't support 3-men marrying (or 3-women), then we are denying homosexuals from marrying too.

James
While I am in support of both polygamy and same-sex marriage, I am afraid that as much as people disagree with same-sex marriage, they disagree with polygamy even more. Unfortunately, we have to fight for one right at a time.

Allison
Assimilation is not the way to acceptance. The only way to achieve equal footing is to acknowledge the many forms love and commitment can take- including polygamy

For more homosexuals in their own words, visit The Advocate.

Thanks for the Link: Conservative Culture, The Conservative Spread

Gay rights activists are powerful because they have money and are organized. Well, today, I've decided to contact the sponsors of the gay rights community as listed on this page. I've written the letter below to the companies further below where I could find the email address. Should you wish to do the same, feel free to use the links and letter provided.

Good day,

I was disappointed to see that your company is listed as a sponsor of the Human Right Campaign. With every dollar you have given to the HRC, you have stated your opposition to the traditions of Americans including Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Under the guise of equality, the HRC supports a secular progressive agenda aimed at destroying the strongly held traditions of the American majority. Among other things, the HRC wants to redefine the traditional definition of marriage and elevate GLBT-choice to the status of a civil right. With your financial support of HRC, you are actively supporting an agenda that the majority of Americans reject and people of faith have historically rejected.

The American culture has provided the platform for your financial success; why, as though it has wronged you, do you now aggressively seek to change it? Why engage in the culture war by partnering with the HRC?

Please rethink your decision to support HRC. As a person of faith, your decision will influence my future business habits.

Sincerely,
Jefferson Reed

CitiGroup, citigroupfoundation@citigroup.com
Prudential, community.resources@prudential.com
Hotels.com, parent is Expedia.com, expcomre@expedia.com and mktgopp@expedia.com
Washington Mutual, investor.relations@wamu.net
Hilton, corporate_communications@hilton.com

In the name of experimental science, yesterday our Senate announced that part of humanity does not have the same intrinsic value as others. Hitler used the same justification to exterminate Jews.

In the name of experimental science, the Senate rejected the dignity of life and voted to use your tax dollars to kill the unborn. They voted to take a fertilized egg, a conceived child, and suck from that vulnerable, dignified, future citizen the stem cells necessary for its own growth.

Politicians lie to get votes. Let me be clear; they distort and twist the truth, intending to deceive, parsing words until they no longer have meaning. Depending upon what ‘is’ means, Congress is full of liars.

Republicans have been the pro-life party since Ted Kennedy changed his position on abortion 30 years ago. Their guiding principle has been that life begins at conception and is uniquely valuable until death occurs through natural processes. Yesterday, Senators showed their colors; whether they believe this premise or whether they have been lying to us.

These Republicans Senators are liars; they are pro-abortion with a twisted set of principles that should exclude them from any public office:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orin Hatch (R-UT)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
John Warner (R-VA)

Our leaders in the Senate have refused to protect our most vulnerable members including the young, elderly, and unborn. Instead of our America welcoming babies into life, we have glorified a culture of death. Instead of celebrating life, we rejoice in death through legalized abortion, euthanasia, and now embryonic stem cell research.

More news on this: HHS's Mike Leavitt, WaPo, TVC

Thanks for the Link: The Conservative Spread

It started showing up in the papers about two weeks ago: World War III. Now politicians are even beginning to think in those terms; Newt Gingrich has staked his entire political future on it. If Gingrich is right, he's insightful; if not, a reactionary.

I despise those who are quick to escalate rhetoric without cause; their hollow words used only to provoke an emotional response or headline. But, for those who truly seek to discern the times, I ask, why rush to label this World War III?

Labeling the current struggle World War III is only good if it serves to strengthen the resolve of Americans. It is only noble when followed by a plea for greater commitment and preparation for the sacrifices that will come. No such commitment has yet been asked or required in our struggle against terrorism except the honorable sacrifice of a relatively few soldiers and their families.

Are we approaching open war? Is the sacrifice that was required of our parents and grandparents, now required of us? Must we now harness the entire resources of our nation to defeat this enemy?

If this is WWIII, let us fight to win; not in the half measures we are currently using. With the resolve we had after 9/11, when we made, "no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," let's fight to win. Let us commit our all that future generations of Americans will remember us as honorable, courageous, and freedom loving. Let it be our finest hour.

Does America still have the character and courage to overcome evil through the influence of overwhelming military force that the future might be one of freedom? While it has been dormant, it may. When America declares war, I hope we will respond with the commitment necessary to win; but we will get there only on the backs of our leaders.

America is looking for leadership that will inspire us in the fight that is coming but as of yet is finding none, save Newt.

Related: WaPo
Trackbacked at this Superior sites: Stingray, Conservative Cat, Linkfest Haven, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pursuing Holiness, NIF, Is it Just Me?, Euphoric Reality, Basil's Blog, bRight & Early

Linked News for Christians, Centrerion Canadian Politics

The Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Protection Act, H.R. 5683, sponsored by Congressman Duncan Hunter, is scheduled to be debated in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, July 19, 2006. The purpose of the Act is to provide for immediate federal acquisition of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California in order to prevent the court-ordered removal of the 29 foot cross which is the centerpiece of the memorial.

The cross has stood atop Mt. Soledad since 1954. In 1989 a single atheist- plaintiff brought suit to remove the cross because he was offended by its sight. That lawsuit ultimately resulted in a federal court order mandating that the city of San Diego remove the cross by August 1, 2006, or face fines of $5,000 per day thereafter. That order was stayed by the Supreme Court last week.

Support our veterans; sign this petition.

1. [Label] the anti-gay ballot measures “divisive” ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues, including “the Bush’s administration’s failed policies;”

2. [Train] state party operatives in all 50 states on how to campaign against anti-gay ballot measures;

3. [Work] closely with the gay group National Stonewall Democrats to “develop strategy and talking points” on the anti-gay ballot measure issue;

4. [Work] cooperatively with campaign organizations fighting the ballot measures in each state where they surface, providing campaign advice, expertise, and logistical and financial support;

5. “[E]mpower and organize GLBT communities around the country” through the help of the DNC’s new gay outreach organizer Brian Bond.

Call it bad names, attack the President, work together; more of the same is not very ingenious but don't be fooled as to its innocence.

Exegeting the DNC's Plan
The momentum for the traditional definition of marriage continues to build whenever it is on the ballot; so this is target number one--keep marriage off the ballot.

Second, because the people speak clearly against gay marriage when focussed, their goal is to distract the people while they quietly redefine marriage. So whenever the subject of marriage comes up, change the topic.

The DNC wants all power gravitated toward itself; thus number 5 is a ploy to have influence over these constituents. Numbers 3 and 4 are the carrots to encourage gay organizations to rally around the DNC.

We could end all of this with the Federal Marriage Amendment. Social conservatives are stubborn and their mind is already made up on this issue. So we win this issue or they give up.

Trackbacked at this Superior sites: Stingray, Conservative Cat, Linkfest Haven, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, NIF, Is it Just Me?, Basil's Blog, bRight & Early

Thanks for the Link: News for Christians

Two more courts ruled Friday against radical efforts to change the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

A federal appeals court overturned a district court decision, thus reinstating the state marriage amendment that was adopted by over 70% of Nebraska voters.

Meanwhile in Tennessee, that state's Supreme Court rejected the ACLU's effort to keep a marriage amendment off the ballot this fall.

Both New Jersey and Washington are awaiting high court decisions at any time that could make them the second and third states to legalize counterfeit homosexual "marriage."

Federal Marriage Amendment anyone?
HT: FRC

In the name of taxes, Oregon is considering installing a GPS unit in cars and sending an invoice once per month based upon the number of miles traveled. By making every road a toll road, this socially liberal state wants to increase the power of government and intrude upon the lives of its citizens.

What's the danger? No more privacy. Bigger government means less individual freedom. Let's think of everyone who may be interested in your whereabouts on a daily basis: state and federal governments, local governments, insurance companies, politicians, marketing execs, creditors; how many thousands of people will have access to your whereabouts should this program be instituted nationwide?

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday the fighting in Lebanon would end when the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah guerrillas were freed, rocket attacks on Israel were stopped, and the Lebanese army was deployed along the border.

I don't think that is too much to ask. He seems pretty serious about continuing to fight should the conditions not be met:

We shall seek out every installation, hit every terrorist helping to attack Israeli citizens, destroy all the terrorist infrastructure, in every place. We shall continue this until Hezbollah does the basic and fair things required of it by every civilized person.

"I want to focus on replacing the governments peacefully if possible of Iran, Syria, and North Korea and being quite clear with the world that totalitarian regimes that sponsor terrorism and try to get nuclear weapons are not acceptable neighbors and their existence is a direct threat to our long term survival."
--Newt

One thing I like about being a social conservative, is our tendency to be relentlessly stubborn.

Nothing demonstrates this as clearly as abortion. In 1973, the Supreme Court legislated Roe v. Wade, yet each year hundreds of thousands of social conservatives participate in some sort of demonstration nationwide--33 years later. Stubborn, indeed

Why are social conservatives, often called traditionalists, so stubborn? Because we believe that there are moral principles which have been imbued into our humanity from our Creator. These principles don't change, because our Creator doesn't change.

Why Some May Stay Home This November
We take voting very seriously. Social conservatives, also called the Religious Right, examine every vote in light of our eternal judgment. One day we will stand before God and He will judge every vote we cast, among other things.

How are Social Conservatives in Tennessee, for example, going to stand before a Holy God on the day of judgment to explain our vote for Senator Frist when he votes this week to expand federal money for embryonic stem cell research? "Gee, God, he was the better of two evils?"

Social Conservatives are relentlessly stubborn in standing upon moral principles; we would rather go to our grave doing the right thing, than live another 30 years having done wrong. This is exactly the question our Senators will have to decide this week: Is living another 10 years worth violating the basic moral principles of our Creator?

Social conservatives have already made up their mind; it's not likely to change anytime soon.

Covering this: WaPo

The second highest calling of any civilized society is to protect its most vulnerable members: orphans, widows, the unborn, and the elderly.

The Senate votes this week whether or not to reject the dignity of life and to use your taxdollars to kill the unborn in the name of experimental science. Embryonic stem cell research uses a fertilized egg, a conceived child, and sucks from that vulnerable, dignified, future taxpaying citizen the stem cells necessary for its own growth.

The ethics of this form of abortion rivals partial birth abortion. In both, a child is being killed to satisfy the selfish nature of another.

As the Senate votes, RightFaith will expose the Republican Senators who are pro-abortion, pro-experimental science, with the most vulnerable of our citizens.

Social conservatives are hopeful that the upcoming week will produce several victories in both the House and Senate.

The House this week will likely pass HR Res 88, the Marriage Protection Amendment, defining marriage to be between a man and a woman.

The Pledge Protection Act will also be voted upon in the House. It is also likely to pass.

I support the Child Custody Protection Act which, if passed, will make it a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion to avoid parental involvement laws in the originating state. This is important legislation and will hopefully pass in the Senate this week.

Senator Rick Santorum's two bill regarding stem cell research will be voted upon in the Senate this week. One bill, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, will 'expand current prohibitions on fetal tissue of aborted babies to also prevent researchers from obtaining fetal tissue if they know the pregnancy was initiated for the purpose of donating the fetal tissue after an abortion.' I support S.3504.

Senator Santorum's second bill, S. 2754, Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, to be voted upon this week increases funding for research on pluriporten stem cells, including adult stem cells which--unlike embryonic stem cell--have already led to major advances in research. I also support S. 2754.

The Senate will vote on H.R. 810, Expanding Taxpayer Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. I agree with the President that embryonic stem cell research ends of the life of a baby after conception--this is a form of abortion and should not receive taxpayer funding. I oppose HR 810.

Contact Congress to express your position:
House of Representatives Main Number: (202) 224 3121
Senate Main Number: (888)355-3588

Thanks for the TB at these Superior Blogs: Leaning Straight Up, Right Wing Nation, Wizbang, Conservative Cat, Point Five Blog, Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, Church and State, Stop the ACLU, NIF, Imagine Kitty, 123Beta, Assorted Babble, Bloggin' Outloud, Third World County

Ford Motor Company continues to support the homosexual agenda despite a steady drop in sales and the price of their stock. The latest Ford support for the homosexual lifestyle came in the July 4 issue of The Advocate, a homosexual magazine. Ford placed two full page ads in the publication featuring all their brands of automobiles, just as they did the previous month. This issue promoted Lambda Legal, a homosexual organization pushing the homosexual agenda in the courts. Lambda has been at the forefront:

*in promoting homosexual marriage
*in changing birth certificates for people having sex-change operations
*allowing homosexuals to adopt foster children
*striking state sodomy laws
*forcing schools to allow homosexual student clubs
*forcing Boy Scouts to accept homosexual adult leaders

Ford has repeatedly said that they will not stop funding the homosexual groups.

Ford has been very generous in their support of the homosexual agenda, providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to help fund GLAAD, Human Rights Campaign, Chicago Motor City Pride, The Advocate, Affirmations Lesbian and Gay Community Center, Out magazine, GLOBE, Out & Equal Workplace Summit, Lesbian & Gay MBA Conference, Reaching Out MBA Conference, PFLAG, GLSEN, Lambda Legal, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, Witeck-Combs, Michigan Gay Pride March, Gaywork.com and many other homosexual groups, events and publications.

Tom Addis, Chairman of Ford's National Dealer Council, explained in a letter to dealers Ford's policy of supporting homosexual publications: "Ford Motor Company advertises in publications that are aimed at various affinity groups. Among them are boaters, hikers, fishermen, campers, ranchers, gardeners, contractors, several ethic and cultural groups and yes, alternative lifestyles." Mr. Addis refused to use the term "homosexual," using the homosexual preferred "alternative lifestyle."

The boycott is having an impact. Ford sales dropped 5% in March, 7% in April, 2% in May and 6.8% in June. Their stock has dropped 13% since we began the boycott. AFA has learned that Ford has scheduled a meeting for Ford regional managers July 16 & 17 to discuss how to deal with the boycott.

Massachusetts state lawmakers have voted 100-91 to adjourn until Nov. 9 rather than take action on a ballot proposal to support marriage. "Democracy lost today," said state Rep. Marie Parente, a Democrat. She's right. State Rep. Thomas Sannicandro (D) said he voted for the delay so that state legislators could vote their consciences without the pressure of having to face the voters soon afterward. So much for representative government! He knows that his values and those of most of his fellow 99 spineless politicians are out-of-synch with their constituents on this issue. Sannicandro doesn't want the issue on the ballot at all. "If we do leave it to the people, it is a discrimination vote."

With the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court giving the go ahead earlier this week for the amendment to proceed, which will reverse the 2004 ruling of the Court creating same-sex marriage, it is becoming pretty clear that the leadership of the legislature has been hiding behind the courts on this issue. It is hard to believe that this is the same state that gave us great statesmen like Samuel Adams, John Adams, and John Hancock who were not afraid to take a stand and represent the people. What these politicians are doing is effectively to deny the people of Massachusetts the right to govern themselves. Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said it well: "In a democracy, the people are sovereign." The U.S. Constitution guarantees each state "a republican form of government." The question is, is Massachusetts still a republic? FRC

Poli is the ideal, fantasy candidate for which social conservatives are looking because she is a social conservative. She is not a SCINO (Social Conservative In Name Only); she has character and integrity. She is the salvation for the Republican Party and hopes to earn your vote. I'd vote for her.

Her platform is outlined below:

Poli is Pro-Life
This is a loaded expression, but let me break it down. Her premise is that life begins at conception and is valuable until death occurs through natural processes.

Abortion
Social conservatives will never vote for a pro-abortion candidates--ever. Poli is has always been against abortion; however, she has given much thought to cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, and severe fetal abnormality. While she doesn't personally support an abortion in these cases, she believes the law should permit families to make this very difficult decision.

The abortion pill, called RU-486 or the morning after pill, is another form of abortion and is very possibly dangerous to the mother. Unfortunately under current law, it should be permitted but only after it has undergone further research to determine whether it has contributed to several deaths nationwide.

Partial-birth abortion must be made illegal; it is infanticide.

Citizens operating within the permissible legal guidelines in their given communities ought to be able to demonstrate their opinions in the public areas surrounding abortion clinics.

Biomedical Ethics
Poli supports full funding for stem cell research; she supports all ethical research including adult and umbilical cord stem cells which have already proven effective in treating 42 debilitating diseases. She does not support embryonic stem cell research which has resulted in no medical advances; embryonic stem cell research ends the life of another.

Poli does not support human and animal cloning; it should be made illegal in the United States.

Euthanasia
Active euthanasia should be made illegal in the United States as it violates the controlled substances act and intentionally ends the life of another. It violates the trust that America has given to its medical professionals.

Passive Euthanasia (removing a medically dead or dying person from life-support) is a serious decision that should be made by the individual and their family.


Homosexual Rights
Poli is against any law that gives homosexuals the benefits of marriage; she will support initiatives that recognize marriage between one man and one woman. Poli is against any law that elevates homosexuality to a protected civil right.

Poli is against the indoctrination of the gay agenda in our schools; see 'education' for more about this.


Freedom of Speech and Decency
Poli believes in the freedom for an individual to dissent against the actions of its government or representative.

However, the freedom of speech has been abused. Poli does not believe that the founders viewed the freedom of speech as a blank check for pornography and obscenity. Therefore, its restriction is paramount to maintaining a society where healthy images of men, women, and sexuality is valued; not distorted through such communication. Poli believes that regulation should clearly address obscenity in books, magazines, television, internet, and radio; this regulation should be enforced when necessary.


Freedom of Religion
Congress should make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Federal, State, and Community entities should have the freedom to acknowledge, pay honor, or respect God OR not acknowledge, not pay honor, and not respect God. The power to change the practices of the individual entities is through voting--not through the courts. If the people in a given area do not like the manner in which the community honors the Creator, they can move or vote in people whom they believe will honor God in a way that pleases them.

Schools, churches, city councils, state houses, etc., should be able to pay honor to 'the Creator' under the Constitution without interference from Congress. Churches should have the freedom to worship according to their convictions without interference from government. Citizens should have the freedom to pray and speak publicly according to their consciences.


Our Elders
Poli strongly believes that we should honor our elders. Because families are the best unit to care for the needs of aging family members, we should pass laws that encourage families to care for them. This includes tax credits for anyone in the household over 75 similar to the child tax credit, and laws encouraging insurances to cover aging family members on their adult child's policy.

She believes we need to do away with the antiquated Social Security program and transform it into a revitalized program for the 21st century. This discussion must happen now and it must produce real results. She is interested in optional, personal retirement accounts but is willing to listen to better ideas that do not increase the burden on our workers and maintains the level of benefits for those at or near retirement.


Government
Poli supports a limited government. She supports the idea that higher taxes is not the solution to our financial problems; the only way to solve our annual deficit and debt is to commit to a 10 year tax freeze (no increases or decreases), dramatically cut spending, and balance budgets, and pay off the national debt.


Education
Poli believes that states are responsible for the education of its people--not the federal government; therefore she supports the idea of eliminating the department of education and phasing out the direct federal funding of education.

On the state level, she believes in high standards and direct accountability attached to funding. She believes in school choice through charter schools, vouchers, and other forms of parental choice as determined by the state legislators.

On the community level, she believes in education of the values of the community; she believes that schools should be able to teach those values that made America into the global icon for freedom including courage, faith in God, and freedom.


Social Programs
Poli believes that financial support of charities and non-profit organizations should occur at the personal level; not the federal level. The Federal government should not be sponsoring Planned Parenthood and other controversial programming through tax dollars.

Therefore, she supports the elimination of federal funding for all programs aimed at addressing community issues. This money instead should partly be contributed to the States to allow them to tackle their social problems, partly to the people in the form of tax cuts, and the rest to pay off the national debt.

States should actively address inner city including gang violence, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, illiteracy, and other social problems by including, if they choose, funding faith-based organizations.


American Values
Poli believe that America is unique and as such we have both a responsibility to protect what we have been given and to promote freedom around the world. Therefore, she believes in the right of citizens to own and bear arms. She also believes that citizens have a responsibility to the nation to protect it from its enemies; therefore she encourages military enlistment for young men and women.

She believes in a strong national defense; that peace comes through the power of a civilized people. That peace is threatened when the people become uncivilized or the civilized become weak.

She believes in the active involvement of supporting freedom around the world, but not in a manner that jeopardizes the sovereignty of America. She believes that American troops should always be under the control of the America military and should never be tried by foreign and international courts.

She believes that war is a sometimes necessary, but always unfortunate, result of human depravity.

She believes that the UN is full of corrupt, anti-American countries and individuals; therefore, the US should consider pulling out of the UN, withholding financial support, or oversee its transformation.

Did I miss other issues important to SoCons? Would you vote for Poli Socon? What do you think? Respond on your blog (positively or negatively), and I'll link to you here.

Admiring German licentiousness, one of Canada's leading papers editorialized this week for the legalization of prostitution. The argument says that since people are going to buy sex, why not legalize it to protect the women? The National Post is lying when it says, "the best course of action is to bring this business under the ambit of the law".

The sexual revolution in the 1960's popularized sex free from any inhibitions. Without thought to original intent, consequences, or boundaries, sexual freedom was supported in high school curriculum, on televisions, movies, and dominated on the internet.

But, the sexual revolution was a lie! And our society is literally paying for the consequences financially, but also socially, intellectually, morally, and culturally. There has been an increase in teen sexuality, encouraged by all forms of media, resulting in an increase in teen pregnancy (leading to more high school drop-outs, more people on welfare, more government dependency, increased drug use, more domestic violence). There are 1.3 million abortions per year (that's how we cope with the unintended consequences of sexual freedom), not to mention guilt and sterility from abortion. Now we have a higher divorce rate (children with absent moms or dads), homosexuality, push for homosexual marriage, epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, destructive gangsta rap, and increased sexual violence. The sexual revolution propagated a lie: that nothing mattered except self-gratification and personal authenticity.

The radical experiment of sexual freedom has failed and it is depleting the resources of our society. The truth is that there are consequences to sex; the truth is that individuals, families, churches, and communities have a responsibility to protect their communities from drain of resources that accompanies the legalization of prostitution.

Amidst the fury of global aggression currently happening, the Senate quietly passed a resolution affirming the national motto, "In God We Trust. This bucks secular humanists like Michael Newdow who seek to completely remove the mention of 'God' from public acknowledgement. The vote comes two days after a federal judge threw out a lawsuit challenging the motto.

With the ruling passed, this vote is significant in that it reaffirms the will the people through their representatives; hopefully our judiciary will take note before ruling against it on further appeal.

A nation that has held endured the attacks of terrorists can be quiet for only so long. And, according to sources, Israel's next action is war. Should that happen, I know whose side I'll be on.

More posters at www.standwithus.com

The government recognition of marriage through the licensing process provides benefits to a married couple. Why would Uncle Sam provide benefits? The government has a selfish motivation, or intrinsic interest. Happily married couples make healthy children; healthy children contribute to a healthy, vibrant society. The best way for the government to attain a healthy, vibrant, growing society is to provide incentives for marriage. The reason the government provides benefits to encourage marriages is that the establishment of a healthy progeny is the nation's most significant role.

If it is not the government’s role to approve or disapprove of gay and lesbian sexual habits, the only other motivation for the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) lobby for seeking sanction of same-sex marriage is selfish—for what homosexual person can get out it. Isn’t it?

But, what incentive does the government have to recognize homosexual marriage? None.

Homosexuals, however, have a lot to gain. On the PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) website, they list numerous financial benefits they will receive if they are allowed to marry: death benefits, corporation benefits, tax waivers, housing opportunity allowances, certain exemptions from property taxes, insurance coverage benefits, tuition waivers, payment of worker’s comp and wages, rights to sue, public assistance from DHS, immigration benefits, fee waivers. I was surprised to see how up front they are in their declaration that they are seeking government's financial incentive for marriage.

Government = 0
Homosexuals = Billions and billions

Recently, PFLAG rang the NY stock exchange closing bell (what that has to do with their movement I'm still wondering). In their press release, they boasted this:

The GLBT community is estimated to possess $641 billion in purchasing power. When this number is multiplied by the similar spending patterns of our allies and supporters, this buying power increases exponentially.

If true, GLBT'ers must be financially savvy to have accumulated such wealth. This seems to show that these financially savvy homosexual leaders may just be this audacious.

Trackbacked at these superior sites: Conservative Cat, NIF, Pursuing Holiness, Free Constitution, TMH's Bacon Bits, Quietly Making Noise, Mental Rhinorrhea , Diane's Stuff, Third World County, Linkfest Haven, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, Mudville Gazette

Here's the platform of the religious left: Fight poverty, Protect the environment, End the war in Iraq. Are they saying that the religious right doesn't care about the poor, the environment, and is kill-happy?

The left and right disagree on the solution to poverty, environment, and war. The left says that GOVERNMENT is the solution; More government social programs to feed the poor, more government regulations to curb pollution, and more appeasement of other countries. The right knows that bigger government means less financial and religious freedom; the freedoms upon which this country was founded.

The religious left is not really preaching a political message, they are preaching the message that the religious right is too morally conservative. The 'right' wants to end poverty AND stop homosexual marriage. The 'right' agrees that pollution AND abortion are both destructive.

The religious left has always existed; indeed, they may be increasing in size as our cultures concern toward the Bible's demand for holiness decreases in the name of tolerance. But, the 'right' is stubborn, they have bigger families, and will be around for a long time.

I won’t give Richard Cohen the pleasure of responding emotionally to his article. Whether he believes what he writes or not, his goal is to make a living. We all know that the more controversial he is, the more money he makes.

However, I do take issue with his argument for the very reasons he condemns the judge’s ruling: it’s uncompelling, illogical, and [I add] anti-American.

America has been uniquely successful in establishing a self-directing government. The argument of the New York court upholds the rights of the people to determine how their government acts instead of imposing the tyranny of the minority. Siding against democracy and the rule of law, Cohen would have preferred a monarchial decree.

There is a story that history has passed down to us of a dinner discussion between the founders John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson found himself in a state of disbelief upon hearing both Adams and Hamilton contend that, minus corruption, the British constitution was “the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man.” Weren’t these men who “denounced the corruption” of a monarchy, and who threw off the bonds of subjection from king who bribed his parliament to pass law? Didn’t these men believe in the Declaration of Independence from the despotism that England offered; have they forgotten the dangers of a monarchy? Jefferson could not believe that Hamilton and Adams admired the British constitution.

It must be in the very nature of man that, 230 years later, men like Richard Cohen so quickly abandon American democracy for the monarchial rule of judges. Jefferson understood this part of the nature of man and later wrote, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” The mischief of the minority, in this case those who believe that the gay marriage should be decreed by the courts, should never hold the majority captive.

Furthermore, Cohen wrongly says “the New York state high court missed a chance to further an education process.” In fact, they did just the opposite. Their ruling educates us that in the entire history of the world, there has never been a successful experiment in self-rule outside of America. Their ruling encourages, “we the people,” to act through our legislatures and the ballot boxes. Their ruling shows their confidence that America is strong enough to determine--through the democratic process—-what marriage will be in these United States.

Cohen thinks that majority rule is “idiotic.” Calling the majority of the court barbaric, Cohen doesn’t believe in the rights of the people to enact law through its legislature. Instead, he condemns the people to despotism and condemns the judges for ruling in favor of legislature action.

It’s true that Cohen ignores that study after study speaks clearly: children develop better with a mom and a dad. It’s true that he understates the popularity of traditional marriage in every state where it has been voted upon. Additionally, it is true that he grossly ignores the purpose for the government sanction of marriage.

From the government’s perspective, marriage licenses are not about the “pursuit of happiness,” as he states. Marriage licenses are about government encouraging America’s self-perpetuation by offering benefits, incentives, to those who marry and produce children. These benefits must be exclusive to those who marry or they mean nothing at all. Either the government sanctions marriage in a form that fulfills the intended function of that sanction (America’s self-perpetuation through the production of healthy children), or it should not sanction marriage at all. (To be sure, there are other unstated moral, practical, and religious reasons to keep marriage between a man and a woman.)

On days when our leaders submit to the will of the people and to the spirit of a democracy, I am proud to be an American. Today is one of those days. I join with our founders and ask God save America from men who prefer the rule of a king.