Obama Steering America Towards ‘Anything Goes’

The FRC is on top of this stuff. No way you hear about all this from the mainstream media as they work to polish and buff Sen. Obama’s image at every turn.

As both sides gear up for the conventions this month, one thing is clear. This is not your grandparents’ Democratic party. Same-sex marriage. Abortion-on-demand. Comprehensive sex education. They all add up to the most radical platform ever to make an appearance at the Democratic convention.

For the first time in history, the Democratic planks will call for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Democrats put in writing their intent to defeat any effort to weaken Roe v. Wade. This is the face of the Left under Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) who is single-handedly recasting his party in the image of NARAL and the Human Rights Campaign.

Although the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, was the one who signed DOMA into law, Sen. Obama is adamant about repealing it, an act that would leave every state in America at risk of being forced to recognize homosexual marriage. His congressional cohorts tried a similar strategy in Congress and failed to find support for their extreme agenda among families. To the dismay of voters across the country, the leadership used their majority status to push the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), introduced numerous pieces of legislation that would give spousal benefits to gay couples, and even held a hearing on the possible repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. With approval ratings in the single-digits, it it’s obvious that the liberal agenda didn’t resonate with voters then-and even hidden behind Obama’s flowery rhetoric, it’s unlikely to appeal to Americans now.

I have sincere fears about where the country will go with this kind of leadership should Obama win the election. Those who choose to ignore what God says is “right” will inevitably pay the price.

The Tricked Get Even

Just read this interesting piece from the FRC:

Turnabout is fair play in the small community of Lavonia, Georgia, where leaders were duped into approving the construction of a strip club in 2001. Seven years ago, owner Jerry Sullivan approached the city council about building a family restaurant along the interstate. But after the official building inspection, Sullivan went to work ripping out booths, adding a bar, and covering the windows for what would become known as Cafe Risque — a topless eyesore in the heart of the city. Although the city sued Sullivan five times, the courts ruled that nude dancing was a form of “expression,” leaving Lavonia powerless to restore any standards of decency to the property.

When the Cafe was sold this summer, its managers believed that it had gone to an entrepreneur that would keep the business intact. To their disgust, they learned that a third party had offered to buy the property and turn the keys over to the city.

Last week, Mayor Ralph Owens confirmed that the city council had voted unanimously to purchase the $1 million Cafe by sacrificing part of the town’s cash reserve. At city hall, an elated standing room only crowd cheered and applauded, then followed Owens to the site of the bar and watched as workers tore the vulgar signs down.

Bachmann Speaks Out Against Planned Parenthood

It’s great to hear someone taking up for those who can’t even defend themselves.

McDonald’s Calling Majority ‘Haters’

As the premiere sponsor of the 2007 San Francisco Gay Pride Parade (and likely again in ’08) McDonald’s has taken a position at the forefront of the gay marriage debate. Several national groups have decided to start a boycott of McDonald’s restaurants until the company moves to a neutral position in the political issue and stops spending its corporate dollars in support of same sex marriage.

So what was McDonald’s response?

In response to the boycott, McDonald’s spokesman Bill Whitman suggested to the Washington Post that those who oppose SSM are motivated by hate, saying “…hatred has no place in our culture.” McDonald’s has decided to adopt the “hate” theme used by gay activist groups for years.

Here’s the American Family Association’s site for the McDonald’s Boycott. Below you can see the important distinction in this effort.

What the boycott of McDonald’s IS NOT about:

• This boycott is not about hiring homosexuals.
• It is not about homosexuals eating at McDonald’s.
• It is not about how homosexual employees are treated.

What the boycott of McDonald’s IS about:
It is about McDonald’s, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald’s has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.

So here we are. If you’re part of the 58% of Americans who believes that marriage should remain officially defined as one man and one woman, then McDonald’s says you are motivated by hate.

How does that taste America? Let’s just say, I’m not lovin’ it.

Obama and Abortion: One Hand Washes the Other

It’s easily my most important political issue. How can it not be? We’re talking about human life, not a “mass of tissue,” as some disingenuously try to claim. We’re not removing kidneys here.

So in my first review of Obama’s voting record I saw repeated support for abortion, even partial birth and abortion on demand. It’s a significant thing and certainly something that would be hard for me to overlook as I consider who to vote for in this election.

This comes from the FRC:

In an interview last week Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made a statement that “mental distress” is not a sufficient reason for a woman to have an abortion. If Senator Obama had stuck by his assertion that would have been a dramatic policy shift both for him and for the pro-abortion Democratic Party.

The junior senator from Illinois quickly “revised” his remarks in an attempt to both backpedal on his comments and to further muddy his extreme views on abortion.

In his interview Senator Obama gave a false description of the bill he repeatedly worked against while he was in the Illinois state senate, legislation that would have protected children who survive abortions. His statements on the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions show a dangerous lack of knowledge about the two Supreme Court cases that legalized abortion in the United States.

Additionally his co-sponsorship of the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) shows his unwavering support of abortion on demand. He went as far as telling a Planned Parenthood audience “the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” FOCA would not only codify Roe v. Wade into law it would also successfully overturn numerous state laws that have been passed over the years to protect children and parents.

When a person willingly chooses to not protect innocent people, what kind of person does that make him?

As a person who has three children, lost two to miscarriage and has a new baby on the way, I’ve become more and more Pro-Life with each passing year. Mr. Obama has chosen the side that doesn’t protect unborn babies in order to gain politically; either that or he’s personally bought the lies.

I’m not sure which is worse.

Attack of the Spoiled Brats

If more people knew about the tactics of the homosexual lobby, they would think twice about how they viewed the whole political movement. Here are a few examples from the FRC.

Stories of the homosexual lobby intimidating companies and individuals who stand up for man-woman marriage are becoming more and more common:

• In Massachusetts, during a petition drive to get a state marriage amendment on the ballot, homosexual activists called people who signed the petition and threatened them with lawsuits or worse.
• Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray so-called homosexual “marriage” in a positive light.
• Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets that refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed, or sued and “publicly slapped.”

That’s about par for the course. Do what we want or we’ll hurt you. Sounds more like a schoolyard bully. Only thing is, they have half of Congress on their side.

We need to do everything possible to protect marriage or we’ll continue to slide into an “anything goes” society.

Obama Caught In Logic Flaw

It’s tough to argue with this logic.

Lying: Part of the Job Description

Now that the match is set—McCain vs. Obama—the long jaunt to the November polls begins. If thousands of years of history have taught us anything, it’s that politicians will say ANYTHING in order to get elected. What we, as voters, need to remember is to focus on a candidate’s voting record.

With that in mind, consider this.

Barack’s intensity is infectious, and his language is soothing, but his votes and views have earned him the rating of the most liberal U.S. Senator. Last week he told conservative South Dakota, “I am not pro-abortion.” Not only has he voted in favor of abortion, partial-birth abortion, and abandoning babies that survive botched abortions, Obama has voted to force taxpayers like you and me to pay for it. [link]

Obama’s track record is ready and available for all to see. If anyone chooses to turn a blind eye and focus solely on his charm and delivery, we’re all in a heap o’ trouble.

Tennessee Rejects Homeschoolers Diploma as Legit

Wow, just when you think things couldn’t get more strange. The attack on Christianity continues in our country as Tennessee’s Department of Education deems that high school diplomas issued by homeschooling situations (and some Christian schools) aren’t sufficient for state jobs. Actually, their language is far worse:

“Cindy Benefield, the Tennessee Department of Education Executive Director of Field Services, who oversees the state’s homeschooling office, recently declared that a diploma from a church-related school is “not worth the paper it is written on.”

Astounding. And the fruitless battle against God continues on…

California Clueless

Once again, wisdom from the FRC.

California Marriage Law: 4,618,673 to Four

After a brief period of judicial restraint, California voters watched in horror this afternoon as judicial activism returned with a vengeance in one of the most egregious rulings in American jurisprudence. It took just four activist judges to overturn the historical definition of marriage, not to mention the vote of more than four and a half million Californians, as the state supreme court issued a much-anticipated ruling on the question of same-sex “marriage.”

By a 4-3 margin, the justices struck down a law, adopted by 61 percent of voters in 2000, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By imposing same-sex “marriage” on voters, the California Supreme Court knowingly usurped the right of the people to effect change in public policy.

This outcome is even more troubling than Massachusetts’, in that California voters had already won the right to put a marriage protection amendment on the ballot in November. If the court cared at all about the democratic process, it would have stayed its decision until the people’s voice was heard on the November amendment. Instead, these justices trampled on the legislature and created same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. This is nothing more than a judicial shotgun wedding that forces a redefinition of marriage on the people of California and potentially the rest of the nation.

We trust that the voters of California will act in November to correct this exercise in judicial activism and to permanently enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution. Clearly, this decision highlights the need for a federal amendment defining marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Only then will this campaign to shatter the family’s foundation be ended once and for all.

When you weaken the essential building block of society, society as a whole suffers. I’m afraid of what the future holds as mankind lurches forward, fist thrust into the air, screaming “We’ll decide what’s right from now on!”

Wasteful Spending, Republicans the New Democrats

I always give the FRC credit for their stuff but at times I do feel guilty not coming up with the point first. But hey, I’m a blogger, who has time?

This time, the topic is pork spending.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) may be trailing in delegates, but she is running away with the nomination for Capitol Hill’s biggest porker. This week, the former First Lady requested a whopping $3.2 billion in earmarks, almost tripling the largest amount received by any one senator this year.

It’s a new world record! Wow! Go Hillary go!

Although her spokesmen argue that the projects are legitimate (most are designated for homeland security or health initiatives), the request marks Clinton as the largest spender of the three remaining candidates. In fact, her proposal is $1.39 billion over Sen. Barack Obama’s earmarks for Fiscal Year 2008, and $3.2 billion more than Sen. John McCain’s (which total zero).

See, this is the crux of the issue. Money=Power. More money, more power. Democrats generally want more government programs, not because they are more caring or compassionate, but because they want more control, more power. They want to be the ones saying what can and what can’t be done.

I simply disagree.

I want less government in my life, not more. Is there anything the government does that could even remotely be considered either innovative or efficient? Even a single example?!? I didn’t think so.

As The Hill newspaper points out, most of her programs are “broadly defined, with few details on precisely where the money would go.” McCain, one of the Senate’s most militant anti-porkers, hasn’t wasted taxpayer dollars on earmarks because he refuses to spend any.

I’m not a big McCain guy but this is certainly one of his best traits.

Unfortunately, the rest of the Republican Party doesn’t share his frugality. In the most recent “Pig Book” from Citizens Against Government Waste, the GOP topped the Democrats in spending for pet projects. In March, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) sponsored an earmark moratorium amendment. Clinton, along with Sens. Obama and McCain, voted for it. It failed, and clearly there is no moratorium now.

So now the current crop of Republicans are fiscally acting more like liberals than conservatives. Though I wish it, the future doesn’t look so bright to these eyes.

Representative Walks the Talk; Doesn’t Abort Her Down Syndrome Son

Consistently good stuff from the FRC. (Why couldn’t the GOP be more like the FRC? Heck, why stop there? Why couldn’t the DEMs?)

If anyone can relate to the struggles of raising a special needs child in this unforgiving world, it’s Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R). Last week, she and her husband welcomed their fifth child, Trig Paxson Van Palin. During her pregnancy, the couple learned that Trig would be born with Down’s syndrome. A pro-family champion who has advanced the culture of life at every opportunity, Palin was faced with embracing this harsh reality in the public spotlight where she has so often lived out her personal beliefs.

Although it was difficult at first, Palin says she and Todd now feel chosen by God to raise “an absolutely perfect” son. In an era when over 80 percent of Down’s syndrome babies are aborted, the Palins feel they have been extremely blessed.

80%?!? What kind of world do we live in?

In a personal letter to her family and friends, Palin wrote, “Many people will express sympathy, but you don’t want or need that, because Trig will be a joy. You will have to trust me on this… Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed-up world you live in… Trig is no different, except that he has one extra chromosome.” To the people who think that Trig shouldn’t have been born, Palin says, “Look around. Who is perfect or even normal?” Now back on the job, Palin is using her testimony as motivation to work even harder to protect unborn children. This week, she helped to bring new legislation to the floor that would ban partial-birth abortion and promote parental consent on minor abortion. A woman who has never wavered in her defense of life, Palin is off to a great start as an up-and-coming GOP governor with political skills and personal ethics. We congratulate the Palins on their newest addition and pray that their story is an inspiration to couples everywhere.

Way to go! That’s an awesome story!

Role of Religion in Politics

How’s that for a broad post topic? Well, I’ve got too much to do today to spend extra time “crafting” it. *wink*

I read this article today—Some young religious voters focus on social justice—and found it lacking in so many ways. Some the fault of the author, others either ignorance or deceit on the part of the populace.

They are trying to expand the focus of faith-based politics beyond the religious right’s hot-button issues of abortion and gay marriage. And they are placing social justice issues, like poverty and war, at the intersection of their moral and political decision making.

Poverty is certainly something religious minded people should focus their efforts towards improving but, “The Poor You Will Always Have With You…”. It’s unavoidable. But more importantly, the government’s role should be towards the greater good of our people as a whole.

Second, war is not always evil. There are just wars. Is not the prevention of the slaughter of millions by the sacrifice of thousands a noble effort? The knee-jerk concept that all war is wrong or that anyone who doesn’t endorse a particular low-income project or bill is somehow unloving is in and of itself an insidious act.

The shift of young faith-based voters both dramatic and complex. ”They’re leaving the Republican Party in droves, but they’re not automatically Democrats,” Wallis said.

Unfortunately, I believe this is largely the fault of today’s Republican Party who has done a horrendous job of maintaining conservative ideals. To use a sports idiom, “You gotta go with what got you here.” The GOP hasn’t and (some) people are bolting. There needs to be a clarion call back to increasing freedom (less government) and a higher value on moral responsibility.

”The youth of America today is very divided,” said Esther Winne, 18, a Christian conservative from Lancaster, Pa., who originally backed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination but now favors Sen. John McCain. ”I think we’re looking for change. I think we’re looking for something new. But I think people are looking in different places.”

Change will always be desired. Always. The grass is always greener…

People should be leery when any politician speaks 90% of the time about change and only 10% of the time about how that change will be achieved.

This is probably Rule #1 in the Politics For Dummies, 2nd Edition, yet voters are still swayed.

”The message that Barack Obama tends to have definitely appeals to people in my generation, especially people in the faith and justice movement,” said Jon Gromek, a 22-year-old organizing associate at Network, a Catholic social justice group based in Washington.

Never underestimate the power of good marketing. Barack’s track record shows a consistent voting against traditional marriage and for abortion; two easy-to-track issues that have an obvious religious direction despite what anyone says.

I’m dismayed to say that at the end of the day, far too many will turn a blind eye to the example that Jesus gave—others before oneself, protect the innocent, promote the family as God intended, et al.—and try to justify the choice they want instead of the choice they know is right.

Homosexual Marriage Failing in Canada

More solid info from the FRC:

In the three years since Canadians legalized gay “marriage,” a majority of our neighbors have gotten cold feet. Although the number of foreigners who apply for same-sex marriage licenses is still strong, few of the locals are rushing to the altar. In Toronto, home of the “million-strong” Gay Pride March, the city issued a modest 107 licenses to native Canadians in 2005. Seven months into 2006, Toronto had issued only one!

But wait! I thought 10% of the population was gay? Maybe they’re just loud enough to sound like 10%.

To a lesser degree, the same is true in our own Massachusetts. Demand for gay “marriages” tapered off significantly since the state implemented it, proving once again that the same-sex community is not interested in “marriage” but forced acceptance.

It’s not about what’s best for society. It’s about, “I want what I want.”

Ask the Canadians and even they will admit that “gay marriage” is a social experiment gone terribly wrong. In yesterday’s National Post, Michael Coren laments how his country is accelerating the erosion of the family. “We made a terrible mistake and may not appreciate the full consequences for a generation. We allowed emotion to obscure logic and belittled anyone who appeared out of step with the current fashion. To marry without good reason is regrettable, to divorce good reasoning from public policy is a disgrace.”

Strong families are essential for our country to move forward. Period.

In America, we would be wise to learn from our Northern neighbor’s mistakes. And that recognition must start with the next President. The next occupant of the White House will hold tremendous sway over the fate of marriage and the family. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has announced his intent to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has remained relatively quiet on the issue. His choice of a running-mate, however, will say volumes about his commitment to family values. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) prefers civil unions that provide all of the benefits of marriage and necessitate at least the partial repeal of DOMA.

Great. So what you’re saying is we’re pretty much out of luck?

Anti-Straight Sues, Courts (Unbelievably) Moves Against Personal Choice

This stuff is no unjust, I can hardly believe that more people aren’t outraged. Tell me what you think.

In New Mexico, religious rights can disappear in a flash, and no one has learned that painful lesson better than Elane Photography. The company, a Christian husband-and-wife team named Huguenin, has become the latest victims of religious intolerance at the hands of the state of New Mexico for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. When a lesbian couple tried to hire the owners for their “wedding,” Elaine and her husband declined, saying that the ceremony violated their moral beliefs. To get even, the women filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, alleging that the couple discriminated against them.

They asked the commission to issue an injunction that would ban the company from ever rejecting a contract based on a client’s sexual preferences. Yesterday, the commission charged Elane Photography with “sexual orientation discrimination” and ordered the couple to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to the lesbians who filed the suit.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), who represented the photographers, called the ruling “a stunning disregard” of the First Amendment. Together with the couple, ADF has vowed to appeal. As a private company, Elane Photography has the freedom to establish its own criteria on issues of conduct and conscience. Clearly, the commission is so consumed with advancing the homosexual agenda that it is willing to trample the couple’s constitutional rights in the process.

Perhaps what is most infuriating about this decision is that the Huguenins’ Christian beliefs aren’t the only thing opposed to same-sex “marriage”–so is New Mexico’s law. Neither civil unions nor homosexual “marriage” is recognized by the state.

The Huguenins have the right to refuse to photograph any number of things they regard as moral issues, whether it’s a photo shoot at Planned Parenthood, a poster for the Ku Klux Klan, or a keepsake album for participants in a baby seal hunt. The Constitution may offend the politically correct crowd, but it is quite clear that Americans should not be forced to promote a private message that violates their conscience.