Archive for the 'Gay Rights' Category

A Fluke? Or A Movement?

In case you have been living under a rock, Sandra Fluke is the college student attending Georgetown University who testified before Congress that her birth control costs $3,000 a year and the only way she can get birth control is if Congress allows the President to force religious institutions (like Georgetown) to pay for it, which they then did.  Rush Limbaugh got himself into some trouble when he used a two naughty words to describe someone who wants others to pay for her to have sex.  Judging by family friendly ABC’s new show GCB (originally titled Good Christian Bitches), if only Rush had called Fluke an SP, he would have been ok.

The left wants us to see Fluke like this:

She is a very young, very poor college student who perhaps has acne or cysts on her ovaries that only birth control can fix.  However, Republicans are voting to make Georgetown revoke her rights to buy birth control because every sperm is precious.  In the end, perhaps she wrote a letter to her senator and her senator actually read it, but somehow Fluke came in contact with Democrats in Washington DC who found her story so compelling that they tried to have her testify before Congress, but Republicans hate women and wanted only men testifying so they said no.

In actual fact, Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old law student who can afford $50,000 a year for law school, but can’t seem to find her way into Target or Wal Mart where birth control is $9 a month.  She wants to force her Catholic college and all Americans to pay so that she can have as much consequence-free sex as she can fit between classes.  She also is not random.  Fluke has been an activist promoting the idea of forcing others to pay for birth control and morning after abortion pills.  In fact, she was the president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.  It’s amazing to me that no one blinks at the fact that this seemingly random student somehow ended up as the star witness for the Democrats, even though Pelosi’s office can’t seem to confirm or deny if the two had ever talked previously.  In fact, Democrats pulled their official witness in order to put Fluke in front of the cameras with her false sob story.  The last minute switcheroo violated policy which is the real reason she wasn’t allowed to testify by those mean old women-hating Republicans.

By the way, which is more offensive?  Rush using naughty words to describe her?  Or Obama giving Christian hospitals, colleges, orphanages, churches and other religious institutions the choice of either providing contraception AND morning after abortion pills or shutting their doors?  Even more offensive is Obama’s hardline on religious institutions while he simultaneously cuts military health benefits.

This brings us to the scary question.  What was Fluke doing at a Jesuit-run Catholic university in the first place?  Doesn’t she know the Catholic church’s teachings on contraception?  Actually, she does and that is why she went there.  Fluke reviewed the Georgetown student insurance policies and enrolled in order to change them.  As a liberal activist, she infiltrated Georgetown in order to use the hand of government to overturn their first amendment rights and force her personal, secular ideologies on them.

This line of attack should scare any religious institution.  It’s one thing when liberals are attacking religion from the outside, like ABC’s new anti-Christian show.  I wouldn’t infringe on people’s freedom of speech and I can control my own remote (imagine that).  But this idea that liberal activists are going to be infiltrating religious institutions in order to impose their secular beliefs on the rest of us should be far more alarming than any naughty words used by an entertainer. Should Christian schools start screening students to make sure they are not liberal plants?

I went to a Christian college for two years.  They taught creation.  They would never pay for morning after pill abortions and actually had rules against pre-marriage intercourse.  They had rules against drugs, homosexuality, drinking, and even foul language.  But it was ok.  We knew that when we went there.  I made a personal choice to go there and live under those rules for two years.  That is something people can do in a free society.  This freedom is the core target of the Fluke-style infiltration assault on Christianity.

This is pretty serious stuff.  The Left has a lot to answer for.  Was Fluke a plant?  If so, it is Fluke and Pelosi who should be apologizing to the country for this blatant fraud and attempt to steal our first amendment rights.

Advertisements

Constitution Takes a Hit in CA

Christians believe that marriage began with Adam and Eve.  Actually, Jews and Muslims follow this same teaching.  Catholics and some Protestant groups have gone as far as making marriage a religious sacrament that endows followers with a measure of saving grace.  It is a sacred religious institution just as much as the Eucharist, baptism in any form, prayer mats, steeples and pulpits.  And until recently, marriage has always legally had the basic definition of between a man and a woman.

Then came the income tax.  Despite 14th amendment guarantees of equal treatment under the law, different people were taxed at different rates based on their income.  This sometimes created tax benefits for married couples, and other times created what is known as the marriage penalty, which will be coming back in full force January 1.  Since one spouse worked and the other often times didn’t, they would be taxed a higher rate than if they filed individually.  Other tax benefits and penalties for married couples included tax treatment of insurance benefits, along with various credits and deductions that have been passed and expired over the years.  The result is that a couple living together without being married under federal law were treated differently than a couple who was legally married.  Marriage became an institution of the state and the state issued marriage licenses.

So where does that leave us with equal protection under the Constitution?  For homosexual couples, this became the backbone for their argument.  Although the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage, homosexual couples have argued that any two consenting adults should have the right to marriage, as long as there is only two of them, they are consenting, and they are adults.  That way, homosexual couples can have the rights to the same tax rates, hospital visitation, insurance benefits and any other benefit for which our current social and tax policy has 14th amendment violations built in.

The rub is that in California, they already had civil unions overcoming every 14th amendment violation. The only difference was that only men and women could get certificates that said “Marriage” on them.  The equivalent argument would be a 50 year old Muslim woman demanding that she be able to have a Bar Mitzvah because of the 14th amendment.  What’s the difference?  Marriage certificates are issued by the state.

Why are marriage certificates issued by the state?  For the same reason old European church-states required infant baptism.  It provided proper tax records while maintaining the traditional religious connotation.  Instead of marriage being between a man a woman and God, it became a state registration along with your drivers license and dog license.  Why can’t states just issue civil unions for everyone and let churches marry whoever they will?  Then God is the judge, not Uncle Sam.

Judge Walker, the openly homosexual judge who overturned California’s voter approved ban, labeled marriage nothing more than a tradition of bigotry.  I wonder when he will decide to rule that salvation must be granted to all Americans under the 14th amendment?  After all, isn’t it bigoted to believe that someone is going to hell?

Judge Walker’s opinion fails to prove that marriage itself, not just civil equality which Californians already had (if they were two consenting adults), must be granted to all combinations of two consenting adults.  Failing to prove this, he then violated the 1st amendment by ordering that the Government establish the definition of the sacred religious practice of marriage, and he violated the 10th amendment as a federal judge by overturning an issue that is clearly not in our nations constitution and is therefore relegated to the states or the people.

If the government cannot protect the sacred religious definition of marriage that has been insanely entrusted to it, then government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

“Better Than Nothing”

As Obama’s health insurance industry bailout teeters on the edge, Democrats are going back to the mantra that got them through the pork stimulus bill and cash for clunkers.  It’s better than doing nothing.  Better than nothing was the quote from Democrat House majority leader Steny Hoyer as even Massachusetts voters consider flipping Kennedy’s seat to a Republican and killing the Democrat filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  The last time a Republican held a Senate seat in Massachusetts was 38 years ago.  The last time Ted Kennedy’s seat was held by a Republican was 1946.

What was promised was an open and honest debate on universal healthcare that would cover every American, decrease the deficit, avoid rationing, keep Medicare intact, leave the freedoms of private industry untouched while regulating the evil corporations that cancel people’s insurance plans when they get sick, and of course make the Republican party finally obsolete.  Instead, we got a bill that no one but Democrats, lobbyists, special interest groups and union bosses have actually seen.  Deficits will increase by a couple hundred billion dollars, healthcare will be rationed, Medicare will be cut (according to the bill), and Obama approved insurance companies will receive a bigger bailout than the Auto industry and banks combined when the government starts penalizing you for not buying insurance from Obama approved private corporations.  But it’s better than nothing, right?

Doctors, healthcare providers, and non-union members with high quality insurance plans will be taxed.  Oh, and before the homosexual community pursues gay marriage much further they should consider that Obamacare includes a marriage penalty that will increase health insurance costs by as much as $2,100 more for married couples making $50,000 than couples who are simply living together.  Oh yeah, and no free public option.  But it’s better than nothing.

Part of the reason Hoyer might think the Senate bill is better than nothing is because it makes all American pay for abortion.  The house bill actually protects pro-lifers thanks to Congressman Stupak, who is ironically a Democrat.   The Senate bill does not have the same protections thanks to the now infamous Senator Ben Nelson buyoff.  Democrats seem hellbent on making pro-life conservatives pay for abortions and organizations like Planned Parenthood who break parental consent laws and protect 31 year olds who get 13 year olds pregnant.

If anyone needed to see what healthcare rationing might look like, they need not look further than the H1N1 vaccine debacle.  I don’t remember there being massive shortages of Viagra, Prozac, Riddlin or other popular privately produced and distributed drugs in recent history.  But let’s let the government manage and distribute our healthcare.  It’s better than nothing.

We can hope that a Republican could win in Massachusetts.  We can hope that if he does the Democrats will respect Massachusetts law and not let soon to be former Senator Paul Kirk (Democrat, long time Kennedy friend, and temporary appointee) cast a vote for the bill after his term expires today.  But I think Democrats have worked too hard for this.  Obama can hardly stand up and give his State of the Union address without being able to tout passing healthcare.  In the end we will end up with something that no matter how terrible it is, is “better than nothing”.

Is Eric Holder Above the Law?

It’s one thing when a politician walks into town and declares that a defendant should go free because the law he is accused of breaking is wrong and should be repealed.  It’s completely different when the prosecutor shows up to the trial and makes that argument.

If I were Alberto Gonzalez, I would be pretty upset right now at what current Attorney General Eric Holder has been allowed to get away with.  Gonzalez was the one who was forced to resign after firing members of his staff, which is apparently only kosher if you are a Democrat.

Holder began by setting the bar low enough that he would never be fired for a minor offense such as letting go under-performing staff.  He also has already shown he knows how to play the race card, making him one of the new untouchables.

But isn’t it beyond the pale for the top attorney in our nation charged with prosecuting our laws to come out like a political candidate against our laws?  Isn’t it the job of an attorney to represent his clients according to the laws on the books?  In Holder’s case, he represents the people by prosecuting the laws of the United States that have been passed constitutionally by the houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

What would you think if you were on the jury of a trial where the prosecutor began his case by denouncing the law that had been broken by the defendant as wrong and in need of being repealed?  Do you think the judge would even allow the trial to continue?  Certainly that prosecutor would be looking for work very soon.

That is essentially what Eric Holder did Friday night in a speech before  the University of Maine.  Maine is a state that is considering whether or not to make gay marriage a legal reality.  The law that Holder must uphold and prosecute until it is repealed by an act of Congress or the court system is the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton.  As of right now, it is still the law of the land.

But Holder decided to tell the students there that it was a bad law and should be repealed.  Isn’t that congress’ job?  If Holder wants to make political speeches, maybe he should run as a politician.  Making public what laws he likes and dislikes, as the Attorney General, based on his own personal opinion is a serious ethical violation.  If Gonzalez could be forced to resign for firing his underperforming staff, then shouldn’t Holder face consequences for betraying the public trust and voicing his personal feelings about the law he is responsible to uphold?

Outrage: Why the Left Deserves Condemnation from the Homosexual Community

The homosexual community used to argue that it should be no one’s business what people do in their own bedroom.  If HBO and the far left have their way, it will be everyone’s business.  They are out to destroy the careers of prominent politicians based solely on their rumored sexual orientation.

In the last couple days, the film Outrage, by Kirby Dick (yes, that’s his name),  hit the small screen on HBO.  Dick’s film is a “documentary” (not that that word actually means anything anymore) about all the public politicians who are hiding their homosexuality.  Whether offering solid evidence, rumors, or pure conspiracy theory, Dick targets any politician who might be trying to protect their privacy by not coming out of the closet.

Apparently, if you are gay you have no right to personal privacy.  Among those who Dick attempts to drag out of the closet is Florida’s Republican governor Charlie Crist, who is recently married.  Apparently if you fit one or two of the physical stereotypes, that also means you are gay and deserve to be dragged out of the closet.  Crist has reiterated that he is not gay, but that does not stop the bigots on the left.

The outrage is not that there are members of the government who are closet homosexuals or fit some bigot’s conspiracy theory, but won’t come out and fight for the radical left’s agenda.  The outrage is that the left is willing to abuse homosexuals and non-homosexuals to satisfy their political agenda.  How many gay politicians have had their careers ruined by these conspiracy theorists?  Larry Craig is either straight, or gay and very concerned for his own family and career.  Instead of respecting his rights to privacy, the left has dragged him into the public square and turned him into a mockery.  Was it for his own good or for the good of the homosexual community?  No.  It was for the good of the left who knew that Larry Craig’s scandal would help win them elections.

Crist is a strong Republican who is running for the Senate next fall.  Right now the Democrats don’t have a shot at defeating him.  All that could change if the left succeeds in getting voters to believe that he is a closet homosexual who is too scared to come out of the closet.  Every homosexual who is interested in protecting their own rights should ask themselves, does making these accusations help the homosexual community?  Or does it just help the Democrats win elections?  Does attacking a straight man and labeling him because of the way he talks or moves help homosexuals?  Or does it ruin the career of an individual based solely on the left masterfully playing on people’s prejudices?

Kirby Dick’s pretenses of trying to get Republicans to vote for homosexual marriage by ruining their lives and careers is nothing more than sickening deception.  The left deserves the strongest condemnation from both homosexuals and heterosexuals for these cheap political ploys.

Safe (Sex In) Schools Czar

A short time ago, Obama’s green jobs Czar, Van Jones, was obliged to step down after he discovered that he had unwittingly signed a petition once to investigate Bush for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Van Jones is actually one of Obama’s less innocuous Czar appointments.  But this is what happens when the President delegates himself the unconstitutional authority to appoint and outsource power to people in made up positions with no congressional oversight.

More shocking than Van Jones, who once accused white people of polluting black neighborhoods, is Obama’s choice for a “Safe Schools” Czar, Kevin Jennings.  Jennings is in charge of figuring out how to make our wonderful institution of public schools safe for the children who attend.  Jennings has come under a great deal of criticism for his pro-homosexual education stance and his anti-religion stance.  But seriously people, this is public school.  That’s par for the course.  Others have been disturbed by Jennings admitted drug abuse and suggest that this might disqualify him from being the man in charge of keeping our schools drug-free.  On the other hand, half the US Presidents who have appointed Drug Czars share Jennings’ history of illegal drug abuse.

“I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned.” – Kevin Jennnings

Beyond his own dark past, what makes most parents nervous about the “Safe Schools” Czar is his record when it comes to actually keeping kids safe.  Jennings tells the story of when a 15 year old boy came to him and told him that he (the 15 year old boy) was meeting older men in a bus station bathroom for sex.  Jennings response, in his own words, was to make sure he “used a condom”.  Who knew when Obama hired the “Safe Schools” Czar, he was actually getting the “Safe Sex” Czar.

Encouraging a minor to enjoy their statutory rape as long as they use a condom is the sort of thing that might get a Republican fired.  In fact, the Washington Times editorial on Kevin Jennings reminds us of how the party lost the 2006 congressional election because Mark Foley sent mildly suggestive texts to a minor.

The Senate Finance Committee has just voted to restore federal funding for abstinence programs.  It is obvious that these programs run directly in opposition to President Obama’s agenda, as evidenced by his choice for Safe Sex in Schools Czar Kevin Jennings.  This may be the beginning of a battle that will show Americans who really is in charge in Washington, the Congress or the Czars.

Elementary School Parents Get “Wee-Wee’d Up”

If you haven’t heard, getting “wee-wee’d up” is the President’s new term to describe people who get nervous about his healthcare plan.  When asked to define “wee-wee’d up”, press secretary “Washington Bob” Gibbs said that it meant that those who oppose universal healthcare were bed-wetters.

Well, now a new group of people are soiling themselves, metaphorically speaking, in reaction Obama.  On September 8, Obama is planning to make a speech that will be televised in every public school; and some Conservative parents are not happy.

Apparently older demographics weren’t buying his plans so Obama’s looking for a younger, more gullible audience.  Schools have been given push-polling forms to make sure that the children understand what the President is telling them in his address.  The forms come with a questionnaire for teachers to ask  students, suggestions for writing assignments, and an ACORN voter registration form.

My reaction?  What’s the big deal?  People, these are public schools.  Obama is not going to say anything that they won’t hear over and over during their 12 years under the supervision of the National Education Association.  In fact, look on the bright side; Obama’s speech is going to be televised where concerned parents can actually watch and record it. In his speech Obama probably won’t talk negatively about God and Christians, won’t talk about evolution in relation to human origins, won’t promote homosexuality, and won’t talk about America’s evil past and the evil men who founded her.  I figure that’s an improvement.  In fact, Obama might take the time to encourage the students to stay focused, don’t smoke, don’t do drugs.  Who knows, maybe they’ll do as he says, not as he did.

Actually, depending on what period Obama takes, they just might have to cancel a sex ed class for that day.  Imagine that, your 10 year old just might be able to keep her innocence for 24 more precious hours.

Ok, so it’s not fair.  President George H.W. Bush made a televised speech in 1991 to one school and Democrats flipped. And you were expecting what?  Consistency?  Like when they said we should vote for Democrats because Republicans spend too much?  Like when they told us we should vote for Democrats because Republicans are going to tax your healthcare benefits and make cuts in Medicare?  Like when they voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then voted against funding our troops, and now suddenly support the wars again?  Like how Obama is cutting back on environmental cleanup but nobody on the left is even mentioning it?  Like how Obama said he would give 95% of Americans a tax cut and now he is talking about raising taxes on 100% of Americans to pay for healthcare and his debt?

It could be that you were expecting consistency because at some point in your own public education someone told you that life should be fair.


Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

Categories