Sunday, December 21, 2008
by Ann Coulter (more by this author)
It's bad enough that the Republican Party can't prevent Democrats from voting in its primaries and saddling us with The New York Times' favorite Republican as our presidential nominee. If the Republican Party can't protect an election won by the incumbent U.S. senator in Minnesota, there is no point in donating to the Republican Party.
The day after the November election, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman had won his re-election to the U.S. Senate, beating challenger Al Franken by 725 votes.
Then one heavily Democratic town miraculously discovered 100 missing ballots. And, in another marvel, they were all for Al Franken! It was like a completely evil version of a Christmas miracle.
As strange as it was that all 100 post-election, "discovered" ballots would be for one candidate, it was even stranger that the official time stamp for the miracle ballots printed out by the voting machine on the miracle ballots showed that the votes had been cast on Nov. 2 -- two days before the election.
Democratic election officials in the miracle-ballot county simply announced that their voting machine must have been broken. Don't worry about it -- they were sure those 100 votes for Franken were legit.
Then another 400-odd statistically improbable "corrections" were made in other Democratic strongholds until -- by the end of election week -- Coleman's lead had been whittled down to a mere 215 votes.
Since then, highly irregular counting methods have added to Franken's total bit by bit, to the point that Coleman is now ahead by only 188 votes.
As long as Coleman maintains any lead at all, Republicans don't seem to care that Coleman's advantage is being shrunk by laughable ballot "discoveries" and disreputable standard-switching from precinct to precinct -- depending on which method of counting ballots is most advantageous to Franken.
Consider a few other chilling examples of Democrats thieving their way to victory over the years.
In 1974, Republican Louis Wyman won his race for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, beating Democrat John Durkin by 355 votes. Durkin demanded a recount -- which went back and forth by a handful of votes until the state's Ballot Law Commission concluded that Wyman had indeed won by (at least) two votes.
Wyman was certified the winner by the New Hampshire secretary of state and was on his way to Washington when ... the overwhelmingly Democratic U.S. Senate refused to seat Wyman.
Despite New Hampshire's certification of Wyman as the winner of the election, this was the post-Watergate Senate, when Democrats could get away with anything -- up to and including a prank known as "President Jimmy Carter."
The U.S. Senate spent months examining disputed ballots from the New Hampshire election. Unable to come up with a method to declare the Democrat the winner that didn't require a guillotine, the Senate forced New Hampshire to hold another election.
It was a breathtaking abuse of power. New Hampshire had certified a winner of its Senate election, but it was a Republican, so the Democratic Senate simply ordered a new election.
Demoralized Republicans stayed away from the race and, this time, the Democrat won the re-vote.
Even more egregious was the Indiana House race in 1984. On election night, the incumbent Democrat Frank McCloskey appeared to have won a narrow victory of 72 votes. But after a correction was made in one county, it turned out his Republican opponent, Richard McIntyre, had won by 34 votes.
McIntyre was certified the winner -- which is when the trouble usually starts for a Republican.
Again, a majority Democrat House refused to seat the certified winner in a close election. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the winner was a Republican.
Consequently, Indiana performed yet another recount of the entire district, which again showed that Republican McIntyre was the winner -- this time by 418 votes. Now he was really asking for it. The nerve of this guy! Hey, buddy, do you mind? We're trying to throw an election over here!
As The Washington Post reported at the time: There were "no allegations of fraud" in the recount and 90 percent of ballot disqualifications had been agreed to "by election commissions dominated by Democrats."
So naturally the House refused to seat the Republican even though he had received the most votes (hereinafter referred to as "the winner"). The House proceeded to conduct its own recount. (If you haven't detected a pattern by this point, please ask your doctor if Prilosec is right for you.)
This time, instead of ordering the district to hold another election, the Democratic House saved all concerned a lot of time and money by simply declaring Democrat Frank McCloskey the winner by four votes.
The vote-theft most like Minnesota this year was the infamous 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State. The Republican won the race on election night, but ballots favoring the Democrat kept being "discovered" until the Democrat finally eked out a majority. At that point, the recount was immediately halted and the Democrat declared the victor.
You would have to go back to Reconstruction to find an election that was stolen by the Republicans this way, but it's all in a day's work for the Democrats.
That's why they were so testy about the 2000 Florida election. It was the one time in the last century Republicans wouldn't let Democrats steal an election they lost by less than a thousand votes.
No matter how many times Democrats steal elections, Republicans keep thinking the next time will be different. Minnesota is famously clean, isn't it? It must different. It's not different. It's still the Democrats.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
by Chuck Norris (more by this author)
Posted 12/16/2008 ETUpdated 12/16/2008 ET
Atheists from England to the West Coast of America are stepping up their efforts this year to make a bigger antagonistic splash on the Christmas scene. From London and Washington, D.C., buses to Colorado billboards, skeptics are skewering religions with little respect to the adherents of the religions.
At the forefront is a group's government-sanctioned posting of a sign by a Nativity scene in the Capitol of Washington state (and now also in Wisconsin and Illinois): "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
"I am a patriot, and I believe that atheists are free to believe, speak and post whatever they want. This is America, and that's their First Amendment right. But to do so with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech is despicable. An anti-religious poster filled with spite is in no way equal to a religious symbol, such as a Nativity scene. Where are the political correctness police when religious followers are the victims?
If such words were written against any social minority group, protests would be ubiquitous. But anti-religious bigotry is in vogue these days. Still, there is absolutely no justification for these atheists' written revile. And if they want to keep using hate-filled language against theists -- particularly Christians -- then they shouldn't be surprised when they meet up with a yuletide (written) roundhouse kick.
Anyone can spew disdain for religion, but is that what America's Founders created our rights for? Just because they post such verbal vomit, does that demonstrate intellectual superiority or the type of moral decency our Founders hoped we would perpetuate?What profit would there be if I posted a taunt that atheists had no vital part in the founding of our country?
As Benjamin Franklin noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."What profit would there be if I posted a claim that atheists are un-American because they try to suppress theists' freedom of religion by the false notion of separation of church and state?
What profit would there be if I posted the accusation that atheists are imprudent because they exhaust too much time trying to convince everyone else of the absence of a being who doesn't exist?What profit would there be if I posted a retort that atheists are igmos because they try to replace Christmas with winter solstice celebrations, which are ancient pagan festivals entrenched in polytheistic religions?
What profit would there be if I posted that atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies -- the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology -- once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column "Science, God, and Man"): "Agnosticism -- reserving judgment about divine purpose -- remains as defensible as ever, but atheism -- the confident denial of divine purpose -- becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"
What profit would there be if I posted that atheists are totally blind to the pristine beauty and ordered complexity of creation, so they cannot see the hand of a Creator? As the Bible pointed out 2,000 years ago, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
What profit would there be if I posted the fact that atheists denigrate every religion and prayer that ever has been offered? To say God doesn't exist is to say every religious leader in every age was delusional at best. And it also is to say that not one prayer on any continent in any era of human history has been answered. That premise alone rules atheism preposterous and foolish.Finally, what profit would there be if I posted that I agree with my friend Mike Huckabee, who said on his book tour via Fox News that atheists shouldn't be fighting for a holiday in December when they already have a holiday: April Fools' Day (a holiday also grounded in sacred Scripture, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god'")?We all know I would be labeled as an extremist, irrational and a bigot if I posted any of the preceding ideas. Yet atheists do and get away with First Amendment murder.
I'd like to remind our nation that it was only a short time ago when Ronald Reagan freely spoke for the majority by explicitly and passionately conveying belief in Jesus Christ during his presidential Christmas addresses. Compare the message in his Dec. 23, 1981, speech with that of the present day, when the very term "Christmas" is being erased from every corner of culture.As long as different displays line the corridors of Washington state's Capitol like Christmas potpourri, let me posit this last idea as a final pre-Christmas posting. At the base of the bust of George Washington (which stands between the atheists' winter solstice sign and the Nativity scene in the Washington state Capitol), I suggest the posting of one more sign, which would contain the wisdom from George Washington's farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."(Note: In the spirit of Christmas, Chuck is giving away a free chapter of his current New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism." To obtain yours, go to www.ChuckNorrisNewBook.com.)
Friday, December 5, 2008
Well, for starters, John McCain did not and does not represent the conservative values I hold dear. He has time and time again 'crossed party lines' to bring forth legislation that no true conservative should be found even near. But when pressed with the choice we had, I as almost 57 million other Americans did, held my nose and voted for him. But many did not. What was it about Obama that so many conservatives, from both sides, found compelling?
If you just listen to what he was saying heading down the home stretch, Obama was taking pages out of Ronald Wilson Reagan's book. He was preaching a conservative agenda. Now I do not hold my breath that Senator Obama(he is not President yet)is going to in any way act conservatively, but that is what pushed him over the edge. That and the fact that many would rather a democrat than a RINO(Republican in name only) as McCain has seemed to many of us.
After the Election the exit polls showed that this country is still very much a center right country. Even in Extremely liberal country, California, the Marriage amendment to the states constitution passed. I think what conservatives need to do now is overhaul the party. I felt for a time that I needed to find a new party that would represent me better than the republicans. Republicans have squandered and political clout they may have had with increased government under their watch and a departure from Reagan's conservative values. As Reagan himself said, The answer is not to create a new party, but to take back the republican party! We need to put in office republicans who will fight for our values.
These are the five basic principles we conservatives want represented:
1. Limited Government
One of the biggest problems today is that the Federal Government has its hand in everything we do. This is not what our founders had in mind. In fact, with every turn that the Govt. gets involved in our personal lives we end up with problems. The govt. by its very nature cannot manage your money better than you can. We will visit each of these principles more in depth in the future.
2. Personal responsibility
What happened to this country? We were(and are) the shining city on the hill. Everyone looked to our shores and the freedoms(less govt and free markets etc.) as a place to work hard and succeed. It was(and is) the American Dream. If you want to take the risk you get the reward. If you choose not to work hard and be a bum, then you face the consequences of those choices. What ever happened to personal accountability? The very fact that there are people who live off of the hard work of others is insane. The communist Manifesto stated from each according to their works from each according to their needs. We move closer to this every day.
3. The Rule of Law
We are a Nation of Laws. We believe in being subject to these laws. If we think a law is unjust we have a means to remove these laws. Why is it that there are those within our country and in our very govt. who feel they can do as they wish and to heck with the law. Too often those in power disregard the laws they do not agree with. Heck, they disregard the very constitution our country is founded upon!
4. Free Markets
The most basic principle of the strong country that we became was because of our Founders belief in a free market system. When Gov't gets involved with business, business suffers. The less Gov't gets involved, ie regulation and taxation, the more business flourishes. Taxes are a necessary evil in order to sustain our defense and a limited govt. But the lower those taxes on the people and the corporations, the more revenue Gov't receives. This is a fact, proven during Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidency as well as during Ronald Wilson Reagan's.
5. A Strong National Defense
Now, I agree that the constitution does not provide for a standing army. But it did provide for a navy in order to protect the nation from foreign invaders. The idea behind not providing for a standing army was that our founders did not want war. They believed that a standing army would look for a reason to go to war. Today's world is drastically different in that the threats facing this country are numerous. The foes bent on our destruction are also numerous. With a strong military we can respond to threats but we can also prevent countless others just by being such a formidable military might. I do not agree with all the foreign posts we are presently in(why do we still need 35,000 troops in South Korea?) but I do support taking the fight to the enemy and not just sit back waiting for them.
We as conservatives have an opportunity to redefine the republican party and appeal to the whole of the country who are yearning for a party to really identify with their conservative values. Can the republicans become that party? I believe that they can. If we all stand up for our principles and demand that our politicians do the same.
And when they don't we need to replace them!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
It is amazing to me the extent of the mainstream media's love afair with President elect Obama. What happened to fair and honest news reporting? What happened to the reporter who investigates the depth of the candidate no matter what they turn up? What will now happen to this country because of the lack of opposition news reporting?
Stay tuned to find out!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
I would tend to agree with them. Obama ran a deceitful campaign on many levels. It is not open for debate. It IS fact that he purposely avoided addressing many issues and when he did, did so with generalities and vague references to what was 'fair' and 'sensible'.
According to the FBI, during election week, background checks, an indicator of firearms sales, were almost 50% higher than the same period last year.
If the country is hurting so bad economically, then why are so many buying guns? I think it is safe to say that with those we have in the white house AND congress, gun legislation Has been brought to the front and center of the agenda. The liberal left gun-control fanatics, such as the Brady Campaign, are licking their chops at pushing through new gun control acts.
After the assult weapans ban expired in 2004, there has been no evidence of increased gun violence with so-called assult weapons. But no matter, the left do not care about statistics unless they help their cause. In fact they love to 'adjust' statistics and run polls that help their agenda, whether honestly obtained or not.
The majority of increased firearms sales at this time are on AR-15 and AK-47 weapons and their like. These "assult" guns are alweays seen as the first step in gun confiscation and restriction because they can spin them as no good and only good for killing other people. Nevermind the fact that the whole reason the 2nd amendment was added was because they wanted to make sure the citizens of this country would never be found unarmed against an tyranical government. And yet the citizens of this country are not 'allowed' to have anything which might help them withstand the govt if that govt so chose to try and take over this country. Gun ownership by the citizenry is the best check and balance on govt and our founders knew it. They only added the 2nd ammendment at the last moment as an insurance against disarming the populace because at the time, ALL of the founders saw these inherent rights as intrinsic to a free society.
Gun-control groups are now targeting ammunition as well. They have lobbied for per round taxes placed on ammunition and straight out banns on certain types. If they cannot take your guns from you they will use the power of taxation and increased 'storage' laws to make the burdens too great to bear, with the hope of disarming through economics. If we sit still now, while the threats are the greatest, we will have no one to blame later but ourselves.
Call the congressional switchboard and tell your representatives that NO new laws are okay when it comes to the restriction and/or increased tax of the firearms industry. 202-224-3121
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Ismail Haniyeh's political advisor says Islamist group met with US president-elect's aides in Strip following online correspondence; 'they told us not to come out with any statements so as not to harm Obama's campaign,' Ahmad Yousuf says
Ahmad Yousuf, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh's political advisor, said that during the recent US presidential race a secret meeting between senior Islamist group figures and advisors to President-elect Barack Obama was held in Gaza.
"We were in contact with a number of Obama's aides through the Internet, and later met with some of them in Gaza, but they advised us not to come out with any statements, as they may have a negative effect on his election campaign and be used by Republican candidate John McCain (to attack Obama)," Yousuf said in an interview with London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat, published Tuesday
Yousuf said Hamas's contact with Obama's advisors was ongoing, adding that he was still on good terms with some of the aides he had befriended while residing in the US.
According to Yousuf, Haniyeh will send Obama a telegram congratulating him on his victory.
"The policy Obama will instate in the Middle East will differ from that of his predecessor George W. Bush, although it is clear that the region and the Palestinian issue will not be at the top of his agenda," Yousef told Al-Hayat, "(the president-elect) will focus more on the economic crisis, Iraq and Afghanistan."
Be afraid America, be very afraid!
Friday, November 14, 2008
Your logic, your truth, your good will, your decency, your work ethic -- it still is the guide post of America. You are "We the people."
It is the lunatic fringe that is celebrated by a media bent on socialism, bent on revitalizing the Mao Zedong agenda -- you are not the minority, you are the majority.
You know rush hour? What a pain in the *ss rush hour is? Do you have rush hour in Bakersfield? I bet you have rush hour. You know what that is? You know what that is? Those are people with alarm clocks. Those are people who get up because they have a burning fire in their soul that says, "You must be productive. In order to be a good, decent human being, you must be an asset. You must work hard before you play hard."
So Gary, you are not alone. But, what the real curse is, it's not the lying, left-wing, Mao media, it's those of us who know better, but don't speak up. The people of California have backed down. The people who are productive in California have backed down to the pimps, and the whores, and the welfare brats, and their media, and their politically correct representatives, Boxer, Feinstein, Schwarzenegger, who literally will lie through their teeth to benefit some blood sucking constituency while your paycheck is being raped and pillaged to pay for some bling-bling infested punk.
You've got to start raising Hell -- and I am constantly being gunned down by the media; I'm a curse, I'm a dangerous guy, I'm a madman, I'm scary, I have too many guns, I shoot all the deer -- eat me! I stand up and I take the bullets because my name is Davy Crockett. This is the wall of the Alamo. If you can't shoot Santa Anna's men, shut up and load my gun! So get tough and get tougher.
You don't need tough love in America, you need tougher love. Around the water cooler, at the church, at school. At the work place, at the picnic, and the bowling alley. You should be pounding the desk with your fist, raising hell, and take this beautiful state back from the pimps, and the whores, and the welfare brats, and the gang-bangers who seems to have all the rights in the world while the good people, the productive, law abiding people don't have jack squat -- and I think I am going to throw up.
Well said Ted! This is too true not just in California but everywhere in this great country of ours. Rise up people and speak up! I will stand alone if I have to, but together we are MANY!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
So why would President-elect Obama suggest a form of slavery to be instituted in America? Within 24 hours of becoming the declared winner of the Presidency, Obama had on his website Change.gov an outline for one of his proposals for America.
Obama thinks that the community service he did helped him become the great man he is. That may be true. Obama thinks that if youth performed service for others they would become better individuals and be able to see beyond themselves. This too is most likely true. Obama feels many youth today do not do any kind of community service for their communities. I also feel this is true. But this is where Obama takes a hard left.
- He want to make community service a requirement for all students in order to advance
- 50 hrs a year compulsory service for grade school students
- 100 hrs a year compulsory service for high school students
- 3 months community service a year for each college student
So I wonder how we compel someone to go along with this? We keep them from advancing, receiving diploma's and degree's of course. So check out the definition of slavery:
Slavery is the systematic exploitation of labour. As a social-economic system, slavery is a legal or informal institution under which a person (called "a slave") is compelled to work for another (sometimes called "the master" or "slave owner"). Evidence of slavery predates written records, and has existed to varying extents, forms and periods in almost all cultures and continents. Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labour. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labor.
An indentured servant is a form of debt bondage worker. The laborer is under contract of an employer for some period of time, usually three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, drink, clothing, lodging and other necessities. Unlike a slave, an indentured servant is required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract
Somewhere in the middle of these definitions is Obama's plan. He is requiring work against ones will without any compensation. And if he was so proud of this plan, why did the web site take it down after they started getting flack for it? And how long will the mainstream media protect Obama once he really starts keeping things from them?
I guess we'll wait and see.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Armistice Day Becomes Veterans Day
World War I officially ended on June 28, 1919, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. The actual fighting between the Allies and Germany, however, had ended seven months earlier with the armistice, which went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918. Armistice Day, as November 11 became known, officially became a holiday in the United States in 1926, and a national holiday 12 years later. On June 1, 1954, the name was changed to Veterans Day to honor all U.S. veterans.
In 1968, new legislation changed the national commemoration of Veterans Day to the fourth Monday in October. It soon became apparent, however, that November 11 was a date of historic significance to many Americans. Therefore, in 1978 Congress returned the observance to its traditional date.
Tomb of the Unknowns
Official, national ceremonies for Veterans Day center around the Tomb of the Unknowns.
To honor these men, symbolic of all Americans who gave their lives in all wars, an Army honor guard, the 3d U.S. Infantry (The Old Guard), keeps day and night vigil.
At 11 a.m. on November 11, a combined color guard representing all military services executes "Present Arms" at the tomb. The nation's tribute to its war dead is symbolized by the laying of a presidential wreath and the playing of "Taps."
We here in America enjoy many freedoms. Many of those freedoms tend to be taken for granted because we here enjoy more security than most of the rest of the world. The founders of this great country saw a chance with the forming of a new nation to create one that gave all men equal footing. While we do not guarantee everyone wealth(yet) we give all the same opportunities to achieve wealth. This could not happen without the sacrifice of a vigilant and dedicated military. Not only does our military defend and protect our freedom and democracy, we have extended ourselves to ensure freedoms may be enjoyed abroad.
What importance does this freedom mean today?
Without the United States of America's example and intolerance of human atrocity, many other countries must try and at least present their people some form of democracy. We ARE the light up on the hill. Our freedoms and liberties are still a beacon that bring many to our shores with its promises of opportunity not available in most of the world.
Today as you live your normal day, think of the sacrifices made to ensure your peaceful day. Thank a veteran, but not just today, when and where you see him or her. A hand shake or a smile, just to say thanks. You do not have to buy them dinner or pay for their movie, but you could. But whatever you do, let them know you appreciate everything they do for us!
Happy Veterans Day!
Have you thanked your Veteran today yet?
Monday, November 10, 2008
A legacy is born
During the American Revolution, many important political discussions took place in the inns and taverns of Philadelphia, including the founding of the Marine Corps. A committee of the Continental Congress met at Tun Tavern to draft a resolution calling for two battalions of Marines able to fight for independence at sea and on shore. The resolution was approved on November 10, 1775, officially forming the Continental Marines. As the first order of business, Samuel Nicholas became Commandant of the newly formed Marines. Tun Tavern’s owner and popular patriot, Robert Mullan, became his first captain and recruiter. They began gathering support and were ready for action by early 1776. Each year, the Marine Corps marks November 10th with a celebration of the brave spirit which compelled these men and thousands since to defend our country as United States Marines.
Friday, November 7, 2008
April 8, 1981 - Ronald Reagan
The Presidential federalism advisory committee that I am forming today is a first step in helping me to restore a proper constitutional relationship between the Federal, State, and local governments. Unfortunately, our decentralized system of government has over the years been bent out of shape. The Federal Government too often has treated elected State and local officials as if they were nothing more than administrative agents for Federal authority. I will look to this Advisory Committee to help me find ways to return towards a proper balance.
The people who make up State and local governments are as capable as any in Washington, D.C. My administration looks forward to working with them in concrete ways. We need to provide for greater authority and responsibility in the States, counties, cities, and towns -- to return government to those closest to the people most affected.
I am particularly pleased that my good friend Senator Paul Laxalt, who served in county government before being elected Lieutenant Governor and then Governor of the State of Nevada, has agreed to serve as Chairman of this Committee. I am further pleased that a bipartisan cross section of Governors, State legislators, mayors, county officials, and Members of Congress have agreed to serve on this Committee.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
This was not a party issue. This was a moral issue. Marriage IS defined in the bible. As well as the fact that homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God. But this was not in any way tied to taking anything away from those who want partner rights or medical benefits for gay roommates. This was about keeping marriage as God intended. Between one man and one Woman.
I could not believe the amount of hostility by the opponents of this proposition. I had to replace signs frequently. There was one time when a neighbor told me my sign was in the street burning. I saw many signs defaced with a large NO over the Yes in Yes for 102: Yes for marriage. On Tuesday I set up many signs at the polling centers as well as many corners which had seen their signs taken prior. Several times that day I had to return to replace or stand back up most of the signs. Are these the actions of intellectually honest and rational people? I think not. I saw a couple of No on 102 signs. I felt no urge to tear down the sign. I did not light the sign on fire. So what possesses someone to become so embittered that they would steal someones sign or burn it, or even just knock it down?
Well, it passed, and I could not be happier about it. California and Florida also passed their constitutional amendments on Marriage. The reason it is so important to ammend the states constitution is that once it is in the State constitution, only the supreme court can rule on any suits launched by gay activists and it keeps activist judges from being able to legislate from their benches. The lunatic left have taken the White House but I think it will be harder than they think to institute some of the whacked out loony legislation they have planned.
Lets hope so anyway.
Statement on Signing Executive Order 12287, Providing for the Decontrol of Crude Oil and Refined Petroleum Products
January 28, 1981
I am ordering, effective immediately, the elimination of remaining Federal controls on U.S. oil production and marketing.
For more than 9 years, restrictive price controls have held U.S. oil production below its potential, artificially boosted energy consumption, aggravated our balance of payments problems, and stifled technological breakthroughs. Price controls have also made us more energy-dependent on the OPEC nations, a development that has jeopardized our economic security and undermined price stability at home.
Fears that the planned phaseout of controls would not be carried out, for political reasons, have also hampered production. Ending these controls now will erase this uncertainty.
This step will also stimulate energy conservation. At the same time, the elimination of price controls will end the entitlements system, which has been in reality a subsidy for the importation of foreign oil.
This order also ends the gasoline allocation regulations which the Departments of Energy and Justice cite as important causes of the gas lines and shortages which have plagued American consumers on and off since 1974.
In order to provide for the orderly termination of petroleum controls, certain minor provisions of the current regulatory program will not end until March 31, 1981.
Ending price controls is a positive first step towards a balanced energy program, a program free of arbitrary and counter-productive constraints, one designed to promote prudent conservation and vigorous domestic production.
This was brilliant. unfortunately since, congress has added regulation upon regulation upon the oil industry and limited where and what they can produce. We need a conservative like Reagan. I know he is out there, somewhere! How bad will it have to get before we recognize him(her) or they recognize their potential and decide to stand up for the rest of us?
Is it you?
Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you and your people for all your help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.
The business of our nation goes forward. These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people.
Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.
But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today.
The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.
We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, ``We the people,'' this breed called Americans.
Well, this administration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this ``new beginning,'' and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world.
So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.
It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal
Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.
If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.
It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we're too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We're not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength. And let us renew our faith and our hope.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are not heroes, they just don't know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter, and they're on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They're individuals and families whose taxes support the government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet, but deep. Their values sustain our national life.
Now, I have used the words ``they'' and ``their'' in speaking of these heroes. I could say ``you'' and ``your,'' because I'm addressing the heroes of whom I speak -- you, the citizens of this blessed land. Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the dreams, the hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God.
We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen; and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they're sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?
Can we solve the problems confronting us? Well, the answer is an unequivocal and emphatic ``yes.'' To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I've just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy.
In the days ahead I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity. Steps will be taken aimed at restoring the balance between the various levels of government. Progress may be slow, measured in inches and feet, not miles, but we will progress. It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles there will be no compromise.
On the eve of our struggle for independence a man who might have been one of the greatest among the Founding Fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren, president of the Massachusetts Congress, said to his fellow Americans, "Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of . . . . On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important questions upon which rests the happiness and the liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves."
Well, I believe we, the Americans of today, are ready to act worthy of ourselves, ready to do what must be done to ensure happiness and liberty for ourselves, our children, and our children's children. And as we renew ourselves here in our own land, we will be seen as having greater strength throughout the world. We will again be the exemplar of freedom and a beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom.
To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment. We will match loyalty with loyalty. We will strive for mutually beneficial relations. We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale.
As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever.
Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength.
Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.
I'm told that tens of thousands of prayer meetings are being held on this day, and for that I'm deeply grateful. We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I think, if on each Inaugural Day in future years it should be declared a day of prayer.
This is the first time in our history that this ceremony has been held, as you've been told, on this West Front of the Capitol. Standing here, one faces a magnificent vista, opening up on this city's special beauty and history. At the end of this open mall are those shrines to the giants on whose shoulders we stand.
Directly in front of me, the monument to a monumental man, George Washington, father of our country. A man of humility who came to greatness reluctantly. He led America out of revolutionary victory into infant nationhood. Off to one side, the stately memorial to Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence flames with his eloquence. And then, beyond the Reflecting Pool, the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln.
Beyond those monuments to heroism is the Potomac River, and on the far shore the sloping hills of Arlington National Cemetery, with its row upon row of simple white markers bearing crosses or Stars of David. They add up to only a tiny fraction of the price that has been paid for our freedom.
Each one of those markers is a monument to the kind of hero I spoke of earlier. Their lives ended in places called Belleau Wood, The Argonne, Omaha Beach, Salerno, and halfway around the world on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Pork Chop Hill, the Chosin Reservoir, and in a hundred rice paddies and jungles of a place called Vietnam.
Under one such marker lies a young man, Martin Treptow, who left his job in a small town barbershop in 1917 to go to France with the famed Rainbow Division. There, on the western front, he was killed trying to carry a message between battalions under heavy artillery fire.
We're told that on his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, ``My Pledge,'' he had written these words: ``America must win this war. Therefore I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone.''
The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.
And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.
God bless you, and thank you.
This was Ronald Wilson Reagan's first Inaugural Address in Jan, 1981
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The number one job of President is to honor and defend the Constitution of these United States. How can Obama even pretend to do this when he has come out and stated that in his mind the Constitution is inherently flawed. He wants to give judges the ability to legislate from the bench. This has been the single most problematic effect of activist judges.
When the founders created the three branches of government they split the legislative branch so that corruption could not overtake the whole branch. They created the Executive branch as a safeguard for the Constitution, to look after her interests. The founders, having studied in great detail, all governments from the Roman Republic to English Parliamentary procedure, were very careful to make sure there were checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches. They so highly regarded judges of the time, they did not spell out what judges could NOT do. They did however charge that the Supreme court was only to judge whether laws were constitutional. To uphold the constitution. They have strayed a little from this, no?
And we have all these additional levels of judges that are completely unnecessary. The constitution gives congress the right to establish these lesser courts 'as needed' but they have the same mandate. We the people need to bring back judicial accountability.
I think what bothers me more than what Obama has professed to want to do as President is that so many of my fellow Americans either chose to ignore this or just plain don't care. I am not sure which is worse.
I am disappointed in the people of this country. Not for voting differently than me, but for voting someone into office who absolutely has no business as the leading defender of the United States Constitution!
What an OBAMANATION!
Nazi Pelosi and her one party rule will start in earnest to push for the far left ideas they have wanted and waited for.
I consider this election of Obama to the office of President of the USA as a warning. I do not decry him as the anti-Christ. I do however fear what he and a liberally led congress can do to the very fabric of this Country and the Constitution it is founded upon.
The fact that 52% of the American people are willing to sacrifice their freedoms for social handouts is beyond me. Why usually rational people can do something so irrational defies logic. But I do have my theories. The first of which is the state of our educational system in America. It is deplorable to say the least.
First of all, we have been misled into thinking that education is a right. It is not and has never been. And now today we average cost of over 10,000 dollars per student per year. And what do we get for this? A population that increasingly does not have the aptitude to to fill the job needs of the highest skill levels in America, and so we consistently bring in other qualified candidates from other countries.
In our schools we indoctrinate those who attend by denying them any sense of national pride. We strip away and free thoughts and teach them a watered down history skewed to a liberal agenda. Did you realize that fewer than 15% of graduating seniors in America can tell you what is really written in the constitution, let alone name the first three Presidents of our great Nation. What are we teaching? Reading writing and arithmetic for sure, but we are teaching them that it's okay to be gay. We teach them that you can be proud of your race and culture, only if you are not white. We teach our children that the government can solve all our problems. And it goes on and on.
The constitution only provides for life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It does not guarantee happiness, only that one has the right to pursue it, on equal footing, with equal opportunity. There was a time when we taught our children to work hard and got together with others who lived around us and pooled our money to hire teachers. We then would build a community school for these teachers to teach our children in. These teachers taught their students the basics of reading writing and Arithmetic. Most continuing education was done by self study and then independent study at University. There were not 'required classes' and prerequisites either. If you do not think this works take a look at John Adams, one of our founding fathers as well as Thomas Jefferson, both of whom taught themselves Latin, French and Law as well as became well read on all they could get their hands on.
Where are our Washington, Adams or Jefferson of today? They are in the charter schools learning about the constitution. They are using the Internet to find out as much information on the subjects that interest them as they can. They are the leaders of industry and invention who drive the markets.
Will Obama make things bad enough that these scholars will rise to the challenge?
I sure hope so.
Monday, November 3, 2008
In this new day of instant news and information availability, a candidate cannot speak one way to one group and then change the message to suit another group of voters. At least not without being called out about it. That is up until the mainstream media decided to climb into bed with Mr. Obama. I am just sick that he has been given a pass on every misstep and association that should at the very least be explained honestly and forthright. I will not mention them all here because at this point it is for naught. The purported journalists of this country's mainstream publications and news stations have failed the people of this country.
I speak to smart and good people every day who when faced with certain aspects of Obama's stated stances on things and past associations are appalled that they had never "really" heard about them. Of course the first reaction is that if they were true they would have heard about them. If only that were true.
So if Obama does what the cheer leading corps of CNN and MSNBC and the other major news outlets are hoping and praying for, will we have lost all hope for this country? I sure hope not. But what I do not understand is the fact that the sheeple voting are potentially increasing the amount of seats held by democrats when the democratically held house and senate have a mere 9% approval rating. Is it a indoctrination of misinformation and double speak? I say it is.
If under a President Obama and democratic house and senate the economy continues to slump and the economic growth in the United States disappears because of the size of the capital gains taxes etc, will the media continue to blame "8 years of Bush"?
This is scary in and of itself and yet it gets worse. In just the last day Obama has let us on a little more of his plan for America. He has called for a civilian defense organization to take on the problems here in America. This just stinks of absolute socialism. Follow along with me please;
During an economic depressive period in Europe that especially hit Germany hard, a young Adolf Hitler found a voice among a minority party and preaching hope and change and national pride rose to power eerily much like Obama. He used the press very effectively. The press of the day were very tired of the leadership in Germany at the time and fanned the flames Hitler was lighting. Like Obama, Hitler was a great orator who inspired his crowds. Those who opposed him were scorched in the media outlets of the day and found themselves in ruin politically.
To this date I have been reluctant to make too close a comparison of the two. No longer will I make that mistake. Once Hitler was in power he created a 'civilian defence' organization. This group started by acting as the personal guards to Hitlers' Nazi Party. They were granted the power to act as a new military arm of Adolf. Soon the media who were oh so happy to promote him found they could not print anything other than what was viewed as 'good for the country' or in other words, approved by the Nazis. This civilian defense became known as the SS and quickly had the country, including the military in it's grasp. The comparison is too close to ignore. We have seen how the Obama camp has acted toward any media source who asked the 'wrong' questions. (The news Station was told it would not get any further interviews with Obama or Biden and that they would not have White House privileges when Obama is elected) We saw how journalists were treated once their respected publications chose to endorse a candidate other than Obama.(they were kicked off the Obama plane)
Is this how the freedom in America Dies? Thankfully I don't think he can do all he has designs to do before America can react and take back it's country. But if you are not scarred, you should be! Rise up America, and return this nation back to the great nation it can still be!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
With that being said I wish to break down where my votes are going on Nov. 4th:
President - John McCain
US Representative, District 6 - Jeff Flake
State Senator, District 18 - Russell Pearce
State Representatives, District 18 - Cecil Ash, Steve Court
Corporation Commission - Marian McClure, Bob Stump, Barry Wong
County Board of Supervisors, District 2 - Don StapleyCounty Assesor - Keith Russell
County Attorney - Andrew Thomas
County Recorder - Helen Purcell
County School Superintendent - Don Covey
Sheriff - Joe Arpaio
County Treasurer - Charles "Hos" Hoskins
North Mesa Justice of the Peace - Lester Pearce
North Mesa Constable - Ed Malles
Maricopa County Special Healthcare District 2 - Harlan Stratton
Mesa Unified School District #4 - Steven Peterson, Kate Ali'Varius, Lance Entrekin
The propositions in my state:
Prop 100: No new Taxes on Real Estate - YES
Prop 101: Freedom of Choice in Healthcare - YES
Prop 102: Defense of Marriage act - YES
Prop 105: Majority Rules inititive - NO
Prop 200: Payday loans - NO
Prop 201: Homeowners; Bill of Rights - NO
Prop 202: Stop Illegal Hiring - NO
Prop 300: Legislative Salaries - NO
Prop 400: Residential Inspections - NO
Question #1: Public Safety Bonds - YES
Question #2: Street Bonds - YES
Get out and Vote People!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Those are the words of Sen. Obama. Just words? This country was founded by men who wanted to make more of themselves. We have had millions of immigrants who have come here to have a chance at the American dream. What is that dream? To be able to work hard and as a result of that work achieve success. What Obama wants is for you to give more of the money you earn to those who are not working for their own success. In the words of his running mate Biden, "It's time to be patriotic and pay more taxes to help lift up this country".
I do not have a problem with the idea of giving a helping hand to those in need. My faith is a big believer in this notion. I just don't like the idea of the government coming for my money and deciding where it gets spent. The whole idea of 'spreading the wealth' goes against the ideals of our founding fathers. They created this government and it's restrictions for the sole reason of limiting the role of government in our life while acknowledging the fact that a central government would be necessary for defense of this nation as well as dealing with differing states issues.
When government gets into the business of wealth distribution it creates a bureaucracy to go along with it. This bureaucracy then needs a reason to stay in existence which is to ensure there are those who need their services, thus creating a never ending cycle of dependence on the government and it's programs. People need a step up, sure, but not never ending welfare that does not improve their situation anyway.
Stop taking from those who work hard and produce and giving it to those who do not!
Another quote to think about from Obama:
I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying.
Just so you are all clear where he stands on this issue, because on this issue as well as every issue, he stands with the far left leaders of his party. He does not stray at all from this party line, which should scare the pants off of anybody who can see what a liberal presidency along with a liberal senate and house can(and will) accomplish with no one to oppose them.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Had enough? Citizens, take back your government!
Please read the following article. Open your eyes America. Do not be lulled into the trap being set by those who would strip your freedoms and take away the very rights they will purport to be fighting for.
What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
It's far worse than most people realize
October 20, 2008
by Brian Camenker
Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.
The public schools
The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.
At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.
Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship! Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”
Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility. Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.
It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.
“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority. Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them.
Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.
Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.
The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".
The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.
Adoption of children to homosexual “married” couples
Homosexual “married” couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.
In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men “married” to each other as their “Parents of the Year”. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby’s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.
In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have “Party A and Party B” instead of “husband and wife.” Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)
Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.
In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.
The public square
Since gay “marriage”, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane “Dyke March” through downtown Boston, and recently a “transgender” parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could “become” men. Governor Patrick even marched with his “out lesbian” 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a “leather” group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!
Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual “married” couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It’s “equal”, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.
A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly “married” homosexuals who march in the “gay pride” parades.
Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.
The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex “marriage” is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans “judicial review” – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.
Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.
Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun.
It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise.
To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Not two words you would think go together, at least not recently. When our founding fathers were caught up in the great cause of liberty they did not take the breaking of the ties with Britain lightly. Many of the founding fathers had deep and loyal feelings for their mother country. They thought of themselves as patriots to the crown. There were those who did not give being a 'subject ' to the crown even a second thought.
These 'revolutionaries' did not just wake up one day and decide they would fight a revolution. These men were good and just men. Most of them were well off, either by birth or by the sweat of ones brow. This new land America had truly given birth to a new feeling. A feeling that one could rise from nothing and become anything.
That great First American, Benjamin Franklin, was proof. Having been born very poor to a large family found himself an indentured servant or apprentice to his brother and his print shop. He ended up a very wealthy and learned man. He was known around the world for his many inventions and for his sharp intellect. He was living proof that America was a land of opportunity.
The King through his 'intolerable' acts actually pushed the colonies into action. Men were talking about the high taxes that was being levied on them. The fact that those from the colonies could not have representation in the house of commons frustrated many. There did not seem to be anyone on the colonists side. Looking back is easy to judge, but would it not have been so easy for the King to allow representatives from the American colonies to be represented? By men such as Franklin no less. I do not know what might have happened then, but things could have gone a lot differently. We may have become the greatest kingdom on the earth, making England the supreme power of the land.
What I am getting at is that idiots in the house of lords and in the house of commons 'fought' against American representation and looked down on those from the New Country. Did you realize that the men who fought for American Liberty in the revolution did so over less than what the Federal Government takes from it's citizens now? When the men who crafted the Constitution came together to write it they came prepared. They studied Greek and Roman ideas of Government. They tried to take into account weights and balance in government. Some wanted a more powerful central government. Some wanted to let the states keep the greater share of power over themselves. What we ended up with is the single greatest document ever written.
The checks and balances over the three branches of Government are meant to keep said government from becoming too big or overstepping it's authority. But what do we have today. Our federal government now has FORCED banks to hand over control to them. The federal Government has decided to take money from me and you and give it to those who have squandered what they were already in charge of.
Who gave them this power? I for one did not. We as a nation have sat by and let our Federal Government become the great leviathan that our Founding Fathers were trying so desperately to avoid. Even the most ardent and passionate Federalist would I think be appalled at what WE have allowed to happen. We have kicked God out of Everything. We have propped up those who do not produce. We have taken away incentive to succeed. We move closer to communism every day.
If you think that statement, "We are moving closer to communism every day" is a little far fetched then I propose you go get yourself a copy of the Communist Manifesto. It states very clearly the exact steps in achieving the communist agenda. If you follow its guidelines you will see that everything we are doing is leading down that path. The Leadership in the Democratic party and the Nominee for President from that same party have not even hidden some of the programs they propose. And Americans are praising him for it. I fear that the America I love is being sold down the river for a hand out. They are promising money for everyone. Where is it coming from? Either they are going to just keep printing money, which causes inflation and devaluation of the dollar, or they will just have to keep taking it from those who do produce and giving to those who do not.
Because I love my country, These United States of America, I will no longer be ignorant of what is going on around me. I may feel outnumbered or out gunned or out-anything else, but I will fight this spread of socialism and communism. I urge you, my fellow Americans to shout from the rooftops the injustices going on these here United States. Because of the brilliance of our forefathers, we have tools at our disposal. We have ways of dealing with politicians who would try and change America into the socialist states of America. We MUST elect politicians who will follow and honor the constitution. Men and Women who will strip away the programs that do not belong or that have been created unconstitutionally.
Facing the choice for President this year, we do not have a clear cut conservative constitutionalist candidate. Not from either Major party anyway. But we must take the lesser of two evils and avoid the rubber stamp veto-proof government we would create by electing Obama. But we must not stop there. We must put into power in congress men and women who WILL fight for mine and your rights as American citizens. It starts now and it needs to never stop. I care not for party but for principal. If there is a incumbent who has not represented us well, he or she must be replaced by someone who will. It really is that simple. Too many of us sit on the sideline and complain but stay out of politics because it is so polarizing or because we are afraid of offending someone. We do not even teach in most of the public schools what really happened in the creation of this great constitutional government.
We are all busy. We all feel pulled into many directions. But if we do not take a stand now, our children may not have the right to. That is not fear-mongering, that is cold reality.
God Bless America
The land that I love
Stand beside her
And guide her
Through the night
With a light
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
GENDERLESS MARRIAGE: A BRAVE NEW WORLD?
by William T. GarnerJudge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Retired
It is no exaggeration to suggest that when California voters go to the polls in November to select a new president, they will also decide another issue at least as important. A 'yes' vote on Proposition 8 will create a state constitutional amendment allowing marriage only between one man and one woman. A 'no' vote will allow same-sex couples to marry.
What is the benefit and what is the harm of recognizing genderless marriage (marriage without a gender requirement)? Aside from being able to call themselves 'married, 'there appears to be no benefit to same-sex couples that did not exist at the time of the 4-3 California Supreme Court decision of May 15, 2008 legalizing genderless marriage. Section 297.5 of the California Family Code already provided that persons who register as 'domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses. However, the harm of official recognition of such relationships as 'marriages' may be irreparable.
Although we cannot foretell the future with certainty, if a genderless marriage remains lawful, then so must a polygamous marriage be. The California Supreme Court effectively changed the traditional definition of marriage by holding that an individual must be allowed to establish a marriage with a person of either sex with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life. If the person chosen is already married to another and all parties agree, in light of the court's language, how can the state refuse to recognize a three-party marriage, or indeed place any limit on the number of marriage partners?
We have recently seen in Texas and elsewhere that there are many people who want such a marriage, and it appears that choice now trumps tradition. Many personal freedoms, including the free exercise of religion, may well be diminished or lost if the amendment is not adopted. Although the free exercise right is provided in both the U.S. and California Constitutions, because genderless marriage has now been held to be another constitutional right, who can doubt that there are judges who will decide that the marriage right must prevail over the religious one?
Consider the following: In Boston, the Catholic Charities recently closed down its adoption program because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency must allow same-sex couples to adopt. Thereafter, an affiliated agency in San Francisco did the same. A Methodist group in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use its facility for a civil union ceremony. In Albuquerque, a wedding photographer was ordered by the state's Human Rights Commission to pay $6,637 to the attorney for a gay couple because she declined to photograph the couple's commitment ceremony. She had explained to them that because of her religious beliefs she photographed only traditional marriages.
What of the effect on education? Section 51890 of the California Education Code requires teachers to instruct children as early as kindergarten about the legal aspects of marriage. The state's position that same-sex couples are equivalent to opposite-sex couples will in all likelihood require changes in school instruction to ensure that a homosexual relationship is not treated differently from a heterosexual one. We can anticipate that the princess in a children's story will be as likely to marry another princess as a prince. Differences between sexes will be minimized or ignored. What confusion will that create in the minds of young boys and girls? If a parent objects to the teaching of homosexuality in the public schools, there is probably little he or she will be able to do about it.
A federal district court in Massachusetts has ruled that parents may not prevent an elementary school from teaching their kindergarten and first-grade children that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are moral and acceptable, even though contrary to the parents' sincere religious beliefs, and that the parents are not entitled to notice of any such instruction or to opt their children out of it. That decision has been affirmed by the First District Court of Appeals. Incidentally, in that case a first grade student was required to listen to a teacher read the book King and King, a story of a prince who falls in love with and marries another prince. (Parker v Hurley)
In England, a Catholic school has been prohibited from firing an openly gay headmaster. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed by the Ministry of Education that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, including teaching that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle, or be shut down. The Mennonites say they will leave the province. A similar government position can be anticipated here. A loss of free speech rights is likely. In Canada, the Alberta Human Rights Commission issued a ruling forbidding a Christian pastor from making 'disparaging' remarks about homosexuality. Expect the same in California.
Opponents of Proposition 8 ask the public to discard the wisdom of centuries by giving official approval to same-sex marriage. But at what price? The mere fact that a practice is old may not make it right but neither does it make it wrong. We have already witnessed the loss of important rights, and recent history suggests that defeat of the proposition will bring others. Let us hope for the triumph of reason over emotion.
And please join the Sons and Daughters of Liberty list by following this blog. Click on the link at the top of this page to follow this blog.