AZ May Outlaw Lawyers Who Oppose Homosexuality

Tuesday, December 30, 2008


For those of you who think we're making too big of a deal about this gay marriage thing, open your eyes and see what's happening! This is not about fairness and equality. This is about certain activist politicians trying to force us to accept homosexuality, and punishing us if we oppose on moral grounds!

‘Licensing’ morality out of the law
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow

Could lawyers be thrown out of the profession based on their religious conviction against homosexuality?

The State Bar of Arizona is considering whether to require new attorneys to swear they will not let their views on sexual orientation get in the way of providing legal services. Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University’s Law School, is concerned.

“I believe that this is a major threat to the practice of law,” he contends. “This is an attempt to literally license those out of business and to revoke the license of those who, in fact, have traditional moral values.”

Staver believes the campaign is going nationwide and will be a tool used by homosexuals to hold back Christian lawyers. “If they then can hold over your head the license and the ability to practice law, that will be a devastating blow to those of us who believe in traditional family values,” he points out.

According to Staver, this is an issue that lawyers and law school students cannot ignore. “It’s a ticking time bomb,” he concludes. “It is a land mine just waiting for someone to step on them.”

The Arizona Bar plans to make a decision in January.

Judges Who Punished Good Samaritans Are Same Who Legalized Gay Marriage

Monday, December 29, 2008

Many are outraged about the recent California Supreme Court ruling that holds good Samaritans liable for injuries to the injured they try to save. But few know who voted in this 4-3 ruling. The LA Times, for example, refuses to report who voted which way. But they provided a neat little chart complete with names and pictures in their report on the earlier ruling that overturned the ban on gay marriage and trampled over democratic and religious freedom.


Well lo and behold, the 4-3 vote was exactly the same in both rulings. Justice Carlos Moreno, a Gray Davis appointee, read the majority ruling for the Good Samaritan case with Kennard, Werdegar, and Ronald Goerge concurring. In the gay marriage case George read the majority ruling with Kennard, Werdegar, and Moreno concurring.


We need to get to know who these corrupt judges are before the upcoming Proposition 8 ruling! We might have a petition to recall coming up!



Shame on you, Focus on the Family

In the wake of an immense outpouring of gratitude from the general Christian community to the LDS/Mormon community for their decisive help in passing Prop 8 (the Marriage Protection Initiative) in California, Focus on the Family has decided to pull an article praising popular political talk-show host Glenn Beck because of complaints about his Mormon religion.

Focus on the Family was bowing to such comments as this one, from an anti-Mormon group called Underground Apologetics issued a release through Christian News Wire

"While Glenn's social views are compatible with many Christian views, his beliefs in Mormonism are not. Clearly, Mormonism is a cult. The CitizenLink story does not mention Beck's Mormon faith, however, the story makes it look as if Beck is a Christian who believes in the essential doctrines of the faith."
In a weak explanatory statement, Focus on the family gave this reasoning for their actions:
"You are correct to note that Mr. Beck is a member of the Mormon church, and that we did not make mention of this fact in our interview with him. We do recognize the deep theological difference between evangelical theology and Mormon theology, and it would have been prudent for us at least to have pointed out these differences. Because of the confusion, we have removed the interview from CitizenLink."
So let me get this right: Because Focus on the Family failed to mention in their article that Glenn Beck is Mormon and that some Christians think Mormonism is a cult, they cannot in good conscience keep that article up?! Shame on you, Focus on the Family, for stooping to the level of bigoted actions where you will judge the value of a man's work by his faith. Shame on all of you so-called Christians out there who will disqualify another Christian man's faith because you do not agree with certain tenants of his doctrine.

But most of all, shame on you anti-Mormon Christians for taking part in the anti-Christian agenda to divide and conquer any Christian coalition through insignificant interior disagreements. Whether or not Mormons are going to hell for believing that Jesus and Satan were brothers should be no concern of yours. Whether or not our educational system and state and local governments will be teaching our children that gay marriage is completely normal and proper should be the greatest concern of all of us. Whether or not school teachers are required to teach our children that they are not the creation of a loving God but rather the inconsequential product of an infinite amount of physical-chemical-biological accidents; whether or not our schools and media teach our children that premarital sex is okay and normal; whether or not our government allows violent and pornographic media to be at easy access to us and our children; All of these things are important to Mormon Christians and Non-Mormon Christians alike.

It was only when conservative-minded Catholics, Mormons, Evangelicals, Protestants and other Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even atheist and agnostic moral conservatives united their funds, efforts and voices in support of Prop 8 that we were able to overcome the massive opposition from large corporations, the media and hollywood that threaten to crush it. Mormon haters, grow up and join the alliance to bring morality back to our schools, our laws and our great nation.

Meet the New McCarthy for the Gay Agenda

Friday, December 26, 2008

fred kargerMcCarthy

Fred Karger is the organizer of the ironically named Californian's Against Hate. He is organizing the large-scale blacklisting of companies in retaliation for the private donations of its owners in support of Prop 8. Since the 1950s, this has been known as "McCarthyism."

Thanks to Californians For [whoops... I mean Against] Hate, we already have a list with all the contact info of those businesses who donated to pass Prop 8 and whom we need to support.

Please re-acquaint yourself with these heroes. The blacklist is still very much in force: businesses are being vandalized and disrupted by protesters and individuals are still being persecuted and losing their jobs for the cause. [Link 2] The gay activists opposing prop 8 are wrecking havoc on the various parts of decent society who oppose their agenda.

Tell Fred Karger what you think at: Info@CaliforniansAgainstHate.com

----------------------------------

Prop 8 foes turn to 'blacklist' tactics

By William M Welch, USA TODAY

LOS ANGELES — After losing on Election Day, some supporters of gay marriage are using economic boycotts and Internet lists to focus ire on the financial backers of Proposition 8.

Some on the receiving end say the tactic amounts to a blacklist, a term that conjures memories of Hollywood's refusal to hire screenwriters and others identified as communists in the late 1940s and 1950s.

"I just hate being pigeonholed as a hate monger or bigot," says Robert Hoehn, who contributed $25,000 to the campaign for Prop 8, which amended California's Constitution to exclude same-sex marriage. "I have friends in the gay community, and I don't think any of them would say that."

Hoehn has seen protesters outside his Carlsbad, Calif., car dealerships, his name and business have appeared on websites publicizing donors, and he has received "the most vitriolic kinds of e-mails, letters and phone calls."

His discomfort is exactly what some have in mind.

"I want to make it a little hot for these people," says Fred Karger, a retired Los Angeles political consultant who started the group and website called Californians Against Hate.

Small as well as large donors have felt heat:

  • El Coyote, a Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles since 1931, has seen fewer diners and been picketed over a $100 contribution by a manager and member of the owning family. Marjorie Christoffersen told The Los Angeles Times, "I've almost had a nervous breakdown."

  • San Diego developer Doug Manchester, who donated $125,000 to put Prop 8 on the ballot, has seen a boycott against hotels he owns, including the Manchester Grand Hyatt on San Diego Bay. Manchester did not return calls seeking comment. Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, which supports Prop 8, said Manchester's hotel "has lost several national conventions and conferences."

  • A-1 Self Storage, with 30 locations across California, has also been targeted by Karger's group. Owner Terry Caster and family members donated $693,000.

Caster did not return calls but has a recording on his phone defending the contribution and Prop 8. "The homosexual community is trying to change something that has been practiced since the start of our great country," he says, referring to marriage. "I simply exercise my right to support that which I believe in."

Brown says she has received calls from small business owners in Hollywood and West Hollywood who have lost customers because of their donations. She said she has seen printed lists that name Hollywood studio employees who gave to the cause, an action that "replicates that feel" of blacklists of movie-industry figures who many in Hollywood to this day believe were prevented from earning a living because of their politics.

Some say blacklist is the wrong analogy.

Larry Gross, professor and director of the school of communication at the University of Southern California, said publicizing donors is a legitimate tactic. He says it is similar to the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott of the 1960s in which blacks were protesting segregated seating.

"This is a matter of private citizens saying they don't want to patronize businesses that have worked against their interests," Gross said.

But Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, says it is wrong to compare supporters of traditional marriage to racists.

"I think the general public is recognizing intolerance" of the blacklist, he said.

[Taken from Kingfisher Column, Original article fromUSA Today]

Remembering the Reason for the Season

Thursday, December 25, 2008


LDS political talk show host Glenn Beck gave a wonderful rendition of the Christmas story on his radio program the other day. Listen to the audio here (with selected Christmas music), or read the transcript here.

Merry Christmas everyone and may God bless you, your family and this great nation in this coming new year!

Attorney General Jerry Brown: Corruption Galore!

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

The media reports that Jerry Brown's attack on democratically elected amendments is admirable and legally sound, but the National Review calls it "dereliction of duty." They point out that Brown doesn't use the typical it-takes-a-revision-not-an-amendment attack, but that he says gay marriage is a "part of fundamental human liberty" and can't be undone no matter what. This is supposed to be the "people's lawyer"? But let's move on to the corruption:


Attorney General Brown's office was deeply involved with his good friend Norman Hsu, the infamous Democrat fund raiser. When Hsu failed to appear for sentencing in a fraud conviction in 1992, Brown negotiated a 50% reduction in bail with Hsu's attorneys which was overturned by the court. Brown then let Hsu off on bail without taking his passport, breaking standard procedure, and Hsu fled the state. Brown received $3,000 political contribution from Norman Hsu's associate, Winkle Paw. Winkle Paw also fled the state. Though they had never donated to a campaign before 2004, Hsu got $213,000 out of the family, including $55,000 to Hillary Clinton, though the father was only a mailman. Brown praised Hsu at a 2006 Democratic Party event according to an LA Times article that is strangely now missing.


But it gets much worse. According to 1970's reporter Richard Brenneman and investigative journalist Gus Russo's 2005 book, Brown took campaign contributions from some of America's top mob figures and, in return, granted them political favors. Sidney Korshak, whom the Godfather character Tom Hagen is based off of, the infamous Chicago mobster (where has the Chicago mob been in the news lately?), was a "pal" of Brown’s father. He then donated heavily to Brown Junior's political campaign. Lew Wasserman and Jake ‘the Barber’ are two more huge mobsters who donated heavily to his campaign. This was achieved by Richard Silberman, Brown's chief fund-raiser for his 1974 governor campaign, who was convicted in a 1991 FBI drug-ring money-laundering scheme.


Russo alleged that Brown gave favors back to the mobsters in return. He appointed the brother-in-law of Korshak associate Edward Hanley a director of the California Agricultural Association. Hanley then "named the concessionaires at all the state’s racetracks and county fairs." Profit from these cencessions were skimmed off and given to mobsters.


Enter Gray Davis. The disgraced former governor was a Jerry Brown associate heavily involved in the racetrack corruption. A Doonesbury cartoon of all things reported this. A reporter asks Gray Davis: "Let me get this straight, Gray—who exactly did Jerry solicit the contribution from?" Gray answers: "A guy named Sidney Korshak. He’s the local low-life, an alumnus from the Capone mob."


San Francisco Chronicle reporter Robert Gunnison reported in 1998: "Brown … appointed [Davis] to the California Horse Racing Board in 1979. It was a particularly volatile time for the panel. Critics said he was appointed to help Service Employees International Union clerks during a strike at Golden Gate Fields. The union’s lawyer, Sidney Korshak, was alleged by the state attorney general to be an organized crime figure."


This was all widely reported at the time, but has since disappeared from media caches and from public memory. (Cross-posted at APCheck)

CA Attorney General Fights to Negate Election Results

Emboldened by a false sense of the so-called slim majority that passed Prop 8 (which is, incidentally, the same percentage that put "Hussein" Obama in the White House), former governor and mayor of Oakland and current California State Attorney General Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown has (unsurprisingly) reversed his decision to fulfill his office as defender of the state's constitution and people's right to government by representation and is instead leading the attack to overthrow the vote of the people in favor of his gay agenda.

His point ultimately is that Prop 8 shouldn’t be considered an “amendment” to the California constitution but a “revision.” What’s the difference? Hard to say from state case law, but essentially an amendment is a minor change to the document and a revision is a major one, based on both “quantitative and qualitative” factors. [...] The more you add to or subtract from the constitution, the more likely it is that you’re making a revision; hence the “quantitative” component, which should bode well for a narrow alteration like Prop 8. [...] Evidently constitutional rights in California have been changed by simple amendment before, and like Patterico says, a right that was expanded just six months ago by court decision ain’t quite as “fundamental” as free exercise.

[from Hot Air]
This is, of course, not surprising since he tried to sabotage the vote from the beginning by changing the wording of the initiative on the ballot from 'Prop. 8 asks voters to affirm that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" - a concept that voters overwhelmingly backed when they approved Proposition 22 in 2000' to 'Prop 8 "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."'

Ol' "Moonbeam" is setting his sights on taking Gov. Swartzenegger's job in 2010, along with fellow gay activist Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco. Hmmm... I don't think disenfranchising 53% of the state will help his chances.

Kenneth Starr will Defend Prop 8 before the California Supreme Court

Monday, December 22, 2008

Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.

Starr was today named lead counsel for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.

UFI President, Beverly Rice had good things to say about the addition to the Yes-On-8 team, “Ken Starr’s expertise in arguing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court will give us a strong voice in our efforts to persuade the CA Supreme Court. He is a brilliant legal thinker and will be a great asset to our team.”

[LA Times]

What Gay Rights Activists have Taught Us

Friday, December 19, 2008

Hate is always hate, and gay rights activists are showing us what they really believe in.


Please pass this on to anyone who you think should hear this message by clicking here or on the envelope below.

Make a Difference with the DNA!

In my inaugural post to this blog, I mentioned that I felt one of the main reasons conservatives lost the presidental election to a radical liberal was because we lacked the internet influence and power of liberal bloggers such as moveon[dot]org. I am happy to find that as conservatives have gone into exile in Washington, grassroots organizations are beginning to mobilize online to educate the public and network the efforts of conservatives to make a difference.

You may have seen the Digital Network Army (DNA) icon appear on the fat right colomn of this blog a few weeks ago. Today I had the oportunity to chat with this organization and found that they are exactly what I have been looking for. The idea behind their organization is that if everyone was to give just a couple minutes a day to further the fight for decency and right, we could move mountains. Click here or on the icon in this post to join up and start making a real difference!

The founder of the DNA explained here why he did it:

I was up to my neck in Proposition 8, serving as a zip code coordinator, and things were getting to the point that (according to my research) there was very little migration toward Prop 8 or away from it except for the younger-voter demographic that would likely be researching the issues online. As I went to do my part to fight the fight online (like some of you have already mentioned) I suddenly found myself surrounded on all sides by the enemy. Any post or comment I left was literally lambasted with a negative onslaught by the opposition. I also noticed that any pro-Prop 8 material on the web was landing way down on the search engine results. I was concerned that this situation would lead to our failure, as our young voters were going to be fed on a diet of pure negativity.

I mentioned my concerns to others around me, and I suggested that we needed to find someone to start a "Digital Network Army" or the DNA. No one stepped forward, so I dove in.

I pictured a silent majority of people out there who were very busy, each wanting to make a difference, but only having a few minutes each day to do it. They felt overwhelmed by the opposition and incapable of making any real difference. I knew that if we could tap into the effort of thousands of people pitching in their "few minutes," and focus all of that combined effort into one key task at a time, we would have an amazing force to be reckoned with - similar to how a distributed network of computers works (as Team Captain mentioned earlier).

So the DNA was created with the distributed network framework that says each individual can become more empowered as we join our efforts together.

Prop 8 and Obama Won by Same Percentage

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

It's funny how the same statistics can mean entirely different things to people, depending on how they feel about the issue. A 4% margin of victory in the case of Obama is considered a "landslide victory" and a "clear mandate from the people," but in the case of Prop 8, the amendment banning gay marriages in California, it is considered an inconsequential "slim majority." Doesn't it seem just a little odd that lawmakers are demanding the overturning of an amendment that clearly protects the moral "status quo" of our society while they are writing off concerns about Obama being constiutionally ineligible for the presidency as wild conspiracy theories? Californians and Americans, stand up for your democratic right of government by consent!


It’s official!

The official Statement of the Vote has been released by the Secretary of State. Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52.3% to 47.7%. We won by a margin of 600,000 votes: 7,001,084 to 6,401,483. To provide some context for this vote:

  • Prop. 8 received 2,150,000 MORE votes than did Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was reelected in 2006
  • Prop. 8 received nearly 2 million MORE votes than Dianne Feinstein did when she was reelected to the US Senate in 2006
  • Prop. 8 received 250,000 MORE votes than did John Kerry when he carried California in 2004
  • Prop. 8 received 45,000 MORE votes than did Barbara Boxer in her landslide reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2004
  • Prop. 8 passed with approximately the same percentage of the vote that Barack Obama received nationally

You can review the county-by-county results of Proposition 8 by going to the California Secretary of State’s Web page. Click here.

Prop 8 Legal Defense to Be Filed this Week

Attorneys for the ProtectMarriage.com campaign will submit the next round of legal briefs to the California Supreme Court this week in our efforts to defend Proposition 8 against three legal challenges. Legal briefing will continue through the holidays until we file our final papers in late January 2009. Then, the seven-member Supreme Court will decide when to hold a hearing for oral arguments, possibly as soon as March 2009.

This week’s written arguments, filed on behalf of our campaign and the official proponents of Proposition 8, will show the Court that Prop. 8 is a properly enacted initiative constitutional amendment, and not an improper “revision” to the state constitution, which can be done only with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

The San Francisco Chronicle published a comprehensive article last month covering some of the legal issues surrounding the challenge to Proposition 8. Here are excerpts:

“Historically, the odds are against the challengers of Prop. 8’s constitutionality. The court has allowed some ground-breaking constitutional changes to become law by initiative - the Proposition 13 tax limitations, restoration of the death penalty, legislative term limits and a pro-prosecution overhaul of evidence rules - and declared only two measures to be constitutional revisions.

“A revision, the justices said in the Prop. 13 case, must be something fundamental, a ‘drastic and far-reaching change in the nature and operation of our governmental structure.’

“The court has never said that the repeal of a single right, like the right to marry, amounts to a constitutional revision. Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that the court should set a standard that protects a historically persecuted minority group from losing rights by majority vote.

“Although legal commentators are divided, most appear to consider the argument a long shot.

“’It’s very hard to argue that this narrowly written constitutional amendment changes the fundamentals of our state government,’ said Ethan Leib, a constitutional law professor at UC Hastings in San Francisco and a supporter of same-sex marriage. “The reason that California has a ‘flexible and inviting (constitutional) amendment procedure,’ he said, ‘is that the people, rather than the judges, get to say what the Constitution means.’

“Another Hastings professor, Calvin Massey, invoked the court’s 1978 ruling upholding the death penalty as a reason that the Prop. 8 challenge should fail. “’I can’t think of any more fundamental right than to not have my government put me to death,’ he said. ‘That was found to be an amendment, not a revision.’”

You can read the full article here.

To help support the Proposition 8 legal defense effort, see the coalition website at www.protectmarriage.com

[from Beetlebabee]

Newsweek: The Bible Supports Gay Marriage

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Newsweek once again revealed their religious devotion to their ridiculously unbalanced, biased liberal agenda with the recent publication of the article “Our Mutual Joy: Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.” I was not sure whether to laugh or cry at the rigorous regime of political correctness and media spin the author subjected to the Holy Book to get it to support her homosexual agenda and condemn the Christians that follow it.

The gist of her argument was thus:

  • Many Christians (the bad, conservative ones who are still living in the Dark Ages, morally and socially speaking) believe that homosexual relations are an abomination and bane to our society and should be outlawed.

  • These Christians claim that the Bible supports their beliefs, but they are stupid because it really says the opposite (ie: it supports homosexuality).

  • Here’s my Proof:
  1. In the Old Testament many of the patriarchs had multiple wives. Christians don’t do that. They’re hypocrites. They should not be against gay marriage then.

  2. In the New Testament Jesus was not married. Then why are Christians? They’re hypocrites. They should not be against gay marriage then.

  3. Jesus said that people won’t be married in heaven and Paul said that people should only get married if they can’t remain single and not have sex. Obviously they didn’t think very highly of marriage so why do Christians? They’re hypocrites. They should not be against gay marriage then.

  4. There are some very clear condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible, but we don’t have to follow them. The times in Leviticus (“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” and “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination”) don’t count because we don’t follow the Law of Moses anymore.

    Paul was also quite clear in denouncing homosexual behavior as an abomination (“Neither […] homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.” ), but some "Bible expert" said that Paul wasn’t really against homosexuality but just sexual promiscuity (and gay couples never do any of that…).

  5. The Bible never mentions lesbians so obviously God had no views on them.

    [Apparently the author forgot this scripture: "Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved."]

  6. Jesus told people to leave their families and join his “community of believers” so he obviously doesn’t think highly of the traditional family unit. Instead, he wants us to live in loving "communes" where we accept whatever people want. (Ha ha! And you Christians thought you knew your Jesus! Oh ... and Christians are hypocrites and should support gay marriage.)

  7. King David was actually gay. He liked to dance and loved his friend Jonathon “more than women.” Isn’t he a role model for Christians?

    [Oh yes, we Christians all aspire to have the morals of David...]

  8. Even though God created Adam and Eve as the prototype marriage and says "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.", it never specifically defines marriage as between a man and woman and never condemns “gay marriage” by name. Christians are therefore wrong about it excluding homosexual couples. (hypocrites...)

    [How much more specificity do you expect from a document that was written 1960 to 8000 years ago and translated who knows how many times? It seems pretty clear to me...]

  9. The Bible was really written by men anyways (*wink wink*) and so we can change it if we want. It is a “living document” up for revision whenever society changes its views.

    [No... just like our founding father's words in the Constitution, God and his prophets wrote what they did for a good reason: they are universal commandments and truths that will bring about our salvation, both individually and as a society. They are not suggestions that you can strike out or re-write if it suits your fancy.]

  10. People have used the Bible to support slavery, anti-Semitism, executing adulterers and witches, etc. You can’t take it literally! Instead, you have to interpret it according to what society values at any given moment and I and my liberal friends feel society is ready for gay marriage. Therefore the Bible supports it.

    [You can't argue with this logic...]

  11. Jesus reached out to the sinners and adulterers in the Bible. That means that he doesn’t care if you sin or are sexually promiscuous and neither should Christians He just wants you to do whatever you want and be happy. (Hypocrites!!)

    [That's what God would do it he hated you. Would you let your kid repeatedly hit his hand with a hammer if it made him happy?]

These are my favorite quotes from this ridiculous article:
  • “[…]the phrase "gay marriage" does not appear in the Bible at all.”

  • “[…]the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God[…]”

  • “the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married[…]”

  • “Why would we regard [the Bible’s] condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?"

  • “A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."
And finally, the best one…
  • "What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations."

It never ceases to amaze me when atheists and agnostics have the foolish presumption to consider themselves experts on religious matters and correct practicing Christians on what they really believe. Why anyone who does not believe a given document is legitimate would use it to prove their argument (and actually think their opponents would even consider their argument) is beyond me. In my humble opinion, anyone who believes the Bible and thinks homosexual behavior is okay with God is an ignorant idiot. The Bible is not only clear in its condemnation of gay sex (and unlike Newsweek I believe "lesbian" sex can be safely included), but shows several examples of the destructive results of societies that engage in and support it.

I only agree with Newsweek on one point in this article: God does want us to love all people, even homosexuals. We are commanded to love all sinners but not the sins. We are commanded to abhor the sins. Imagine what would happen if we followed the liberal ideal and refused to judge anyone for any of their actions. Would we then support child pornography and sex rings, murderers, robbers, rapists, drunk driving, political bribery, etc? All of these things are outlawed because they are very bad for our society and could destroy it if left unchecked. It is much easier to accept homosexuality, it does not seem to directly affect our lives. But history is the warning. Sexual perversion and debauchery has been the downfall of many a civilization. Why do so-called "intellectuals" today think that they are smarter than the collective wisdom of ages. Every major religion historically condemned homosexual behavior. There is a reason for this: it is very bad for us. We must not stand idly by while it takes root and grows in our society. Homosexual acts must remain illegitimate and condemned in our society.

Gay Persecution of Mormons is an Assault on All Americans

This short article perfectly explains the seriousness of the situation developing with the "Gay Mafia"'s persecution of the Mormons, and what it means for the rest of our country.

(Originally entitled, "We are All Mormons")

by Rabbi Nachum Shifren

We are living in an era of insanity! Witness the latest attempt to remake the nature of our country, founded and established on certain principles that have been the envy of the entire world. The latest assault on our country and its values comes in the form of vicious and criminal violence against the Mormon church in Westwood, California

Interesting how the selective self-righteous indignation on the part of the radical Gay activists is played out here: they bewail the blow to freedom and justice! But I thought we just had elections, where the majority of Californians expressed their views in a free and open manner. Are we not a nation of laws? Dare we relive the McCarthy era, where Americans were harassed and threatened with the loss of their jobs for believing in a certain way? If the Gay radicals should have their way, untold numbers of Americans would live under the threat of the Gay-Lesbian “thought police,” where individuals that reject the Gay lifestyle would be sought out and have sanctions brought against them.

It’s bad enough for those working in the entertainment industry here in Los Angeles, where a fog of political correctness and a bending over backwards to accommodate, even promote Gay lifestyle is in full gear. Let none dare say that this type of activity is anathema to our country, our morality, and the debauchery of our young people.

Let it be stated unequivocally: The radical Gay attack on the Mormons is the shot over the bow against the United States of America. There was a time when what a man did in his bedroom was sanctified between himself and God. Now we are being served an “in-your-face” smorgasbord of smut and licentiousness as being between people who only “want their civil rights.”

Hogwash! We are dealing with the equivalent of a moral takeover of the country that has as its bedrock a belief in God and His promise for humanity. They don’t want civil rights! What they desire is quasi Gay/Lesbian hegemony, where a huge “bookburning,” reminiscent of the Nazis, will purge any remnants of the “Christian, White, mainstream America” that has given ALL AMERICANS the most profound scope of freedom, liberty, and justice that Mankind has yet to experience.

People have perhaps wondered: why the Mormons? Answer: they are a small, yet vocal Christian minority. They have been selected by the mobs as vulnerable, a group that might not have such massive support among America’s Christians.

We who are friends of the Mormons, their patriotism, their family values, will not falter in our continued support of these dear Americans. Let us recall the Christian minister Niemoller, whose admonition during those dark years of Nazi Germany moved us to our core:

“When they came for the gypsies, I said nothing, because I wasn’t a gypsy. When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing, because I wasn’t a homosexual. When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I said nothing, because I wasn’t a Catholic……then they came for me, and there was no one left to defend me.”

My fellow Americans, in the coming battle for the heart and soul of America and everything we cherish, may this call to arms be the mantra of every concerned patriot: “WE ALL ARE MORMONS!”

(Originating, as far as I can tell, from Beetle Blogger)

Meanwhile, Democracy Crumbles In Thailand

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

There's no shortage of coverage for Thailand's political crisis. The democratically elected Prime Minister was ousted by the courts after a small group of protesters put Thailand's tourism and travel industry to a standstill. The People's Alliance for Democracy wants Thailand to "return to its past policies" according to Associated Press. Near the bottom of the report, AP mentions that the protesters want to "eliminate the one-person, one-vote system." That's as far as media goes in explaining what these protesters want.


The truth is that the PAD wants to destroy democracy. The media refuses to report this simple fact. The thousand-something people who mysteriously managed to cripple Thailand's infrastructure is "a coalition of royalist businessmen, activists and academics" (in other words elitists) who hate the PM because of his support from "the poor rural and urban majority.".


It's an open secret that these opponents of democracy have "support within the powerful Thai monarchy, perhaps from Queen Sirikit, who has been notable for expressing sympathy for PAD members."


What we have here folks, is Thailand on the verge of a communist-style China, where the monarch stands at the top of a ruling elite class. And much like here in the US, democracy is being usurped primarily through the courts. Why won't our media report the truth?

Gay Agenda Causes 100,000 Episcopalians to Break Away from Anglican fellowship

Tensions have been erupting among the 77-million member Anglican Fellowship headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams ever since Canadian Anglicans started marrying gay couples and New Hampshire consecrated the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who lives with his longtime male partner. While liberal Anglicans have argued that "biblical teachings on social justice" required them to support the homosexual agenda, traditionalists have have found these actions to clearly and unacceptably violate scripture.

This ly formed "North American Anglican province" includes four breakaway Episcopal dioceses, many individual parishes in the U.S. and Canada, and splinter groups that left the Anglican family years, or in one case, more than a century ago. Bishop Robert Duncan, who leads the breakaway Diocese of Pittsburgh, is the proposed new leader of the new North American province, which says it has 100,000 members.
Conservatives form rival group to Episcopal Church
This is not unlike what is going on among conservatives in the United States. Some members of the Republican Party are urging the rest of us to become more centrist, give up some of our stubborn ideologies such as discouraging homosexual legitimacy, property rights, national sovereignty, faithful interpretations of the Constitution and other such conservative views for redistribution of wealth, welfare, international control of US sovereignty, moral relativism. But many of us are breaking away from the leaders and organizations that would force us in that direction and taking a stand once and for all for what is decent and right. Kudos to the new Anglican North American province.

Hillary Constitutionally Forbidden From Sec. State

Monday, December 1, 2008

Today president-elect Barack Obama named Senator Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. As hilarious as it is to see Hillary become Barry's secretary, there's just one small problem: the constitution forbids it.


WorldNetDaily points out the second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution which reads, "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."


This means that members of the Senate cannot be appointed to secretary of state or any other civil office if the salary or benefits of such offices increased during the senator's term. The salary for officers in the Cabinet increased from $186,600 to $191,300 during Hillary's time as Senator. The salary is poised to increase again come January, so all sitting Senate members will likely be ineligible for positions in Obama's cabinet.


Now the Democrats could decrease the civil officers' pay before January, but even if they pulled that off, wouldn't the intent of our constitution already have been violated by the Messiah President?


Don't expect mainstream media to report any of this.

What it means to be part of the Conservative Resistance

Friday, November 28, 2008

I think that it is very important for all disenfranchised conservatives to network with some organizations (like the ones on the blog roll to the left, and this website) to become informed, unified and empowered. Even just glancing at the far left column on this site every visit will keep you informed on the latest news and activist activities. As outcast conservatives, unifying our views and power is our only hope of bringing some sense back to our government. I am not interested in donating them money, but this site gives the following good suggestions for us to fight for:

The Resistance States:

As an American citizen, while I will show respect to President-elect Obama, I oppose the far-Left and socialistic elements that comprise the centerpiece of his agenda. I recognize that it will take a patriotic and resilient Citizen Resistance to block implementation of this agenda and I join with others who oppose these threats to our liberties.

Specifically, I Resist:

  • Socialistic wealth redistribution including any and all tax increases and big-government welfare programs.

  • Silencing conservatives through the Fairness Doctrine and other efforts that restrict free speech.
  • Open border anarchy including amnesty for illegal aliens and promotion of multi-nation “unions”.

  • Government-run health care that weakens our system and imposes more tax burdens on citizens.
  • Weakening of our military through rapid pullback from Iraq, defunding our troops and overall disarmament.

  • Social liberalism including radical pro-abortion agenda, the end of marriage and the homosexual agenda.
  • Liberal court activism that undermines faith, family and liberties while expanding government control.

  • Post-American globalism that diminishes our global role and threatens our national sovereignty.
  • Environmental extremism, the CO2 tax, undermining coal and nuclear, and bans on oil exploration.

  • Weakening the 2nd Amendment through unconstitutional gun laws that take away or penalize us for owning firearms and our right to defend our family, our property, and ourselves.

More on Obama's Phony Birth Certificate

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Another expert on forgeries has come forward with striking evidence that even the "Certificate of Live Birth" (which is not proof that Obama was born in Hawaii) that the Obama camp has posted online is a forgery. From Rathergate II: Certification of Live Birth a clear forgery

The Summary: The Certificate of Live Birth documents posted on Mr. Obama's website www.fightthesmears.com, Daily Kos (a pro-Obama blog) and factcheck.org, (a pro-Obama political research group), were found to be altered and forged.

  1. The problem of the pixels: When you have a green patterned document such as this, there should be a lot of green pixels from the background showing up between the letters that appear on the certification. But in this case, instead of green pixels, there are white and grey pixels between the letters, which result when you replace existing text with other text.

  2. There is no second fold line. The pictures show two folds – necessary to fit any COLB into an envelope for mailing, but the document itself shows only one fold. This is another indication of document alteration.

  3. There's a blurred border. The border has a lower resolution than the rest of the document, which is another indication that it has been altered.

  4. The border is one that is used in 2007 COLBs. As a security measure, Hawaii changes their borders every year. This is when the Obama campaign claims the certificate was obtained. That is fine except for the problem that …

  5. The seal and signature stamp are from a 2008 COLB. As revealed by a process called edging, the Hawaiian seal and signature stamp on the back of the document are revealed to be from the wrong year!

Like with Rathergate, when you're creating documents, make sure you use only a typewriter that was invented at the time you report the document was manufactured. When posting a "Certification of Live Birth," make sure you "borrow" only from documents used in the same year!

Be sure to sign the petition demanding evidence of Barack Obama's constitutional qualifications.

Perhaps this explains Obama's attitude that the Constitution is an "experiment" that can be changed from time to time as politicians wish. It appears that even in his very eligibility to be president, Obama is side-stepping the requirements of the Constitution and his supporters are turning a blind eye!

Proper Judicial Authority and the War on Terror: Attorney General Michael Mukasey's "Fainting" Speech

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Before the ailing, 67 year-old Attorney General Michael Mukasey was loudly heckled by a liberal state judge and fainted during his speech to the Federalist society last Thursday, he was giving a wonderful point-by-point argument about the necessity of judicial restraint in matters of policy and why the Bush administration's policies regarding the War on Terror, Judicial Activism and detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be retained. His full speech is reproduced here (I have bolded the important parts for those who like to skim):

[(I took out the beginning pleasantries)...]

As we near the end of this Administration, and we approach the first transition that our government has seen since the attacks of September 11th 2001, I would like to focus on the successes of this Administration that relate to matters that concern this Society, the legacy that will remain when this Administration leaves office, and on a matter relating to our national security that I think should continue to receive the attention of this Society.


Perhaps of most obvious interest to the members of the Federalist Society are the judges and justices whom the President has appointed to the federal bench. As the President recently explained to the Cincinnati chapter of this Society, he has sought out, as he put it, "judges who would faithfully interpret the Constitution - and not use the courts to invent laws or dictate social policy." With the help of many in this room, the President has succeeded in this effort and appointed many well-qualified and accomplished judges who understand their role in interpreting -- not writing -- the laws.

Most notably, the President has appointed two members of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. These men are no strangers to the people in this room -- indeed, they both spoke to this Society last year. Both of these remarkably accomplished justices will continue to serve the Nation for many years to come, and we are grateful not only for their service, but also for their approach to the difficult questions of constitutional law and statutory interpretation that the Court faces each term. The President is rightfully proud of his selection of both of these men, and the Federalist Society should be proud of the role it played in supporting their nominations.

The President also has nominated - and the Senate has confirmed - many other well-qualified judges throughout the Federal courts. Unfortunately, still other good and well-qualified people were denied the same opportunity. We have seen the nominations of skilled, experienced, and well-respected candidates delayed or frustrated through procedural tactics. Quite frequently, it has been hard for these nominees to receive a vote in the Senate or even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. For those who never received a vote, or even a hearing, I offer my profound regret -- you deserved better.

Tonight, however, we should take note of our successes. Indeed, this Administration's judicial legacy includes 61 judges appointed to the courts of appeals and 261 judges appointed to the district courts. The President and the members of his Administration will leave office in January, but these good judges will remain in place, many for decades to come.

The Federalist Society should be proud of the role it played in supporting these judges, but it also should be proud of the basis on which it did so. As the members of this Society recognize, the core meaning of judicial independence is independence from the political pressures and fashions of the moment. Otherwise, judges become simply politicians who are independent only in the sense that they have life tenure and so are not subject to the discipline of the political process -- namely, elections. Although judges are appointed through a political process, once they take the oath, they are confined to exercising a power that is, under Article III, judicial only. Which is to say, one that should involve a faithful, not a fanciful, reading of the laws and the Constitution.

I want to turn to another subject, which I have taken from Day One to be my most solemn responsibility as Attorney General. That is ensuring that we put into place the institutions we need to keep our country safe from the continuing threat posed by Al Qaeda and other international terrorists.

On September 11th, 2001, nineteen terrorists inflicted the most catastrophic attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor. What made that attack so devastating was not simply the toll inflicted upon our country, but the idea that nineteen lightly armed terrorists could murder nearly 3,000 Americans. The reality of such asymmetric warfare required us to dramatically reconsider how we should confront the threat of international terrorism.

When the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, when Al Qaeda attacked the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen and our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States deployed the FBI to the scene to collect evidence, pursue leads and; ultimately, indict and prosecute at least some of those responsible.

Following the September 11th attacks, however, it no longer seemed prudent to treat international terrorism solely as a criminal matter where suspects are pursued and prosecuted only after they have perpetrated a crime. Indeed, at the time of the September 11th attacks, Osama bin Laden was already under criminal indictment for his role in the embassy bombings. Instead, the United States recognized the attack of September 11th to be what it was: an act of war -- a war that had been declared years earlier by enemies of the United States, and indeed of civilized people everywhere. In response, this Nation, under our President, committed to a comprehensive offensive strategy against the terrorists abroad using every resource at our disposal -- military, intelligence, financial and law enforcement.

The U.S. military deployed to Afghanistan where Al Qaeda had found a safe haven within the confines of the brutal and inhumane regime of the Taliban. When our forces, or those of allies, captured members of the enemy, we detained them so that they could not simply return to the battlefield and, where we thought it appropriate, transferred them for detention to the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay.

At home, the Administration sought to reorganize and modernize our government to reflect the new priorities of the War on Terror. We brought domestic security agencies, which historically had been scattered throughout the Executive Branch, under the umbrella of a Department of Homeland Security, and we established a Director of National Intelligence to ensure that our intelligence agencies would work together in tracking terrorist threats and preventing new attacks.

Within the Department of Justice, the FBI made preventing terrorism its top priority and restructured its resources accordingly. Since September 11th, the FBI has transformed itself into a world-class intelligence agency, designed to detect and prevent attacks before they occur, rather than simply investigating them afterwards. The FBI has doubled the number of intelligence analysts and translators in its ranks, and opened 16 new offices overseas, including in Kabul and Baghdad. We created the FBI's new National Security Branch to bring together divisions responsible for counterterrorism and intelligence and counterespionage, and we made similar institutional reforms in establishing the National Security Division at the Department of Justice.

The Administration worked with Congress in reorganizing our government and with passing new laws to promote the collection and dissemination of critically important intelligence. Shortly after September 11th, Congress passed the Patriot Act to ensure that analysts and investigators could access the information they needed to protect our Nation, work together to "connect the dots," and pursue a strategy of prevention. And this year, Congress did the same for our intelligence professionals, passing bi-partisan legislation that modernizes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the intelligence community to quickly and effectively monitor terrorists' communications while ensuring respect for our civil liberties.

Taken together, the Administration's policies in the War on Terror represent nothing less than a fundamental reorganization of our government and will ensure that the next President has the tools he needs to continue to defend the country.

The Administration's strategy in defending the Nation from terrorist threats has not only been comprehensive, but has also been successful based on what matters the most: Since September 11th, Al Qaeda has not managed to launch a single act of terrorism in the United States. This is a remarkable achievement that no one could have predicted in the days following the September 11th attacks. The credit for that goes to many people, including many brave men and women in our armed forces, and many brave men and women in law enforcement and intelligence services, who put their lives at risk routinely in parts of the world most Americans, to their great comfort, will never encounter. Much of that credit also goes to the President; in this area, as in many others, leadership and resolve matter.

As the end of this Administration draws near, you would expect to hear broad praise for this success at keeping our Nation safe. Instead, I am afraid what we hear is a chorus with a rather more dissonant refrain. Instead of appreciation, or even a fair appraisal, of the Administration's accomplishments, we have heard relentless criticism of the very policies that have helped keep us safe. We have seen this in the media, we have seen this in the Congress, and we have heard it from the legal academy as well.

In some measure, those criticisms rest on a very dangerous form of amnesia that views the success of our counterterrorism efforts as something that undermines the justification for continuing them. In an odd way, we have become victims of our own success. In the eyes of these critics, if Al Qaeda has not struck our homeland for seven years, then perhaps it never posed much of a threat after all and we didn't need these counterterrorism policies.

Other critics question the premise -- almost universally accepted following the September 11th attacks -- that the United States is engaged in a war against Al Qaeda and other groups. Even more common is the casual assumption among many in media, political, and legal circles that the Administration's counterterrorism policies have come at the expense of the rule of law. I am quite familiar with these criticisms, having heard them myself during my tenure as Attorney General.

Now it is hardly surprising that the questions of how we confront the terrorism threat should generate vigorous debate. These questions are among the most complex and consequential that a democratic government can face. There is, understandably, passionate debate about where the legal lines are drawn in this new and very difficult conflict and, as a matter of policy, how close to those legal lines we should go.

As the members of this Society know, however, answering legal questions often involves a close reading and a critical analysis of a text -- the Constitution, statutes, judicial decisions, and the like. Regrettably, this point is much too often lost in the public discourse on the subject. Newspapers, commentators, and even prominent lawyers often discuss critical questions about national security policies with barely any acknowledgement that the answers may depend on the language of, say, the Constitution or a statute. And critics of this Administration's policies rarely draw distinctions between whether a course of action is permitted as a matter of law, and whether that course of action is prudent as a matter of policy.

For example, earlier this year, the head of a legal organization that prides itself on what it calls its "nonpartisan approach to the law" gave a speech condemning what he called "the oppressive, relentless, and lawless attack by our own government on the rule of law and our liberty." According to this person, we live now in a -- "time of repression" where the "word 'Patriot' names a statute that stifles liberty," and where we face "assaults by our government on constitutional rights, the Separation of Powers, and the Geneva Conventions." You can practically hear the rumble of tanks in the background.

It is interesting -- and telling -- that even in the published, written version of these remarks by a lawyer, the references and footnotes are not to statutory texts, the Constitution, treaties, or laws. Instead, the author relied on such authorities as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Review of Books. This style of criticism can be called many things -- provocative perhaps, or evidence that the author could be regarded by some as well-read -- but what it cannot be called is a reasoned legal critique.

Also completely absent from these remarks, and from many remarks like it, is any fair appraisal of the legal issues actually involved or an acknowledgement of the difficulty or novelty of the legal questions confronted by the Administration lawyers who made these decisions. Nor was there any discussion of the atmosphere in which these decisions were made. I was in New York City when the two planes hit the Twin Towers, and I know what it was like to be in the city at that time. But I cannot speak from any experience of my own to what it was like to be a lawyer in the Justice Department at that time. There must have been almost unimaginable pressure, without the academic luxury of endless time for debate. The lawyers called on to make critical legal judgments at that time - and in real time - certainly had no time to consult the New York Review of Books when looking for answers to these difficult and pressing questions.

If you listen only to the critics, you might assume, for example, that this Administration, by asserting that habeas corpus did not apply to alien enemy combatants, had tried to deprive the judiciary of a time-honored role in second-guessing our military commanders' decisions concerning whom to detain on foreign battlefields. Of course, before this armed conflict, federal judges have never asserted the authority to afford habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants captured and detained abroad.

As even the majority in Boumediene acknowledged, the Supreme Court had "never held that noncitizens detained by our Government" outside the United States had "any rights under our Constitution." Indeed, following World War II, the Court had specifically rejected that habeas corpus would apply in that context. The Administration's position in Boumediene thus was at least arguably justified by text, history, and precedent. A majority of the Supreme Court may have disagreed, but the Administration's position hardly constitutes the attack on habeas corpus asserted, but not explained, by its critics like the author I quoted.

And when people denounce a purported assault on the "Geneva Conventions," you might expect some level of specificity in the charges. One cannot "assault" a treaty as an abstract concept; one can only violate the treaty by acting contrary to its words. The Geneva Conventions contain 319 articles, of which 315 are plainly addressed to armed conflicts among the nations that signed the Conventions. It is hardly surprising that the United States concluded that those provisions would not apply to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda, an international terrorist group and not, the last time I checked, a signatory to the Conventions.

One common article appearing in each of the four conventions, Article 3, provides rules that govern "conflicts not of an international character," such as civil wars. The President concluded early on that the global war against Al Qaeda had a decidedly "international character." In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a majority of the Supreme Court disagreed. This narrow legal dispute -- again turning on an Administration interpretation that was both reasonable and, indeed consistent with text, history and precedent -- hardly warrants the sweeping, dismissive, and entirely conclusory criticisms so frequently heard.

I focus on these types of criticisms not because they are so extraordinary, but because they are unfortunately so typical of people who substitute their policy views for any serious legal analysis and who would turn a good-faith legal disagreement into a battle over the purported existence or non-existence of the rule of law. The irony, of course, is that the law requires a serious analysis of text, precedent, and history, and it does not serve the rule of law to substitute a smug sense of outrage for that kind of analysis.

In fact, this Administration has displayed a strong commitment to the rule of law, with all that entails and I suspect, and I admit it is a suspicion tinged with hope, that the next Administration will maintain far more of this Administration's legal architecture than the intemperate rhetoric in some quarters would seem to suggest. I remain concerned, however, when relentless criticism of this Administration's policies moves beyond simply disagreement into a realm where critics, and even public officials, seek to invoke the criminal justice system to vindicate their policy views. For instance, in June of this year, 56 Members of Congress sent me a letter requesting that I appoint a special counsel to conduct a criminal investigation of the actions of the President, members of his cabinet, and other national security lawyers and intelligence professionals into the CIA's interrogation of captured members of Al Qaeda.

The Members who signed this letter offered no evidence that these government officials acted based on any motive other than a good-faith desire to protect the citizens of our Nation from a future terrorist attack. Nor did they provide any evidence or indication that these government officials sought to authorize any policy that violated our laws. Quite the contrary: as has become well-known, before conducting interrogations, the CIA officials sought the advice of the Department of Justice, and I am aware of no evidence that these DOJ attorneys provided anything other than their best judgment of what the law required.

Casual requests for criminal investigations, as well as the even more prolific conflation of legal disagreements with policy disagreements, reflect a broader trend whose institutional effects may outlast the current Administration and could well endanger our future national security.

I have spoken in more detail about these concerns in several recent speeches, in which I drew substantially on former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith's book, The Terror Presidency.

Let's all remember what Professor Goldsmith has said about what he saw during his time in the Administration. Although he may have disagreed with some of the legal reasoning employed in making those decisions, he made it perfectly clear that despite his disagreement he saw no evidence that those who provided that advice did so in bad faith, for any reason other than to protect the country during a time of war, or with the belief that what they were doing was in any way contrary to the law. It is important for those who are so quick to condemn the attorneys who were working nearly around the clock, for months on end, in the wake of September 11th, to keep that in mind.

In his book, Professor Goldsmith describes what he calls "cycles of timidity and aggression" among political leaders and commentators in their attitudes towards the intelligence community. These cycles have played out before - from the 1960s through the 1990s, but those past cycles are now mainly of historic interest. The most recent cycle is of much more than historic interest. As Professor Goldsmith explains, following the September 11th attacks, "The consistent refrain from the [9/11] Commission, Congress, and pundits of all stripes was that the government must be more forward-leaning against the terrorist threat: more imaginative, more aggressive, less risk-averse."

After going seven years without another terrorist attack, our intelligence professionals and national security lawyers now hear quite a different message. When 56 Members of Congress request a criminal investigation of the professionals and lawyers, they should have no doubt that those lawyers, and certainly their successors, will get the message: if they support an aggressive counterterrorism policy based on their good faith belief that such a policy is lawful, they may one day be prosecuted for it.

The competing imperatives to protect the nation and to safeguard our civil liberties are worthy of public debate and discussion, and congressional oversight and review of our intelligence activities is vitally important. But it is equally important that such scrutiny be conducted responsibly, with appreciation of its institutional implications. We want lawyers to give their best advice to those who must act, and we want those who must act to know that they can rely on that advice.

As this Society knows, the rule of law is not undermined by stating with clarity and precision exactly what the law requires. To the contrary, both our law, and our democracy, gain strength when we separate legal disputes from policy disputes, and when we permit our policy disputes to be aired in good faith.

In a democracy, of course, the appropriate way to resolve policy disputes is through the ballot box. We have just had an election, and a new Administration will soon take the reins in Washington. What I have done as Attorney General has been to try, along with others in our government, to make sure that our counterterrorism efforts stand on sound institutional and legal footing so that the next Attorney General and the new Administration have what they need to assure the safety of the Nation.

The next Administration will have the opportunity to review the institutions and the legal structures that this Administration has relied upon in keeping the nation safe over the past seven years. I am neither so proud as to think that the next Administration will be unable to make improvements, nor so naive as to think that the policy choices, or even the legal judgments, that they make will be identical to ours.

What I do hope, however, is that the next Administration understands the threat that we continue to face and that it shares the priority we have placed on remaining on the offense to prevent future terrorist attacks. Remaining on the offense includes not simply relying on the tools that we have established, but also encouraging a climate in which both legal and policy issues are debated responsibly, in a way that does not chill the intelligence community and deter national security lawyers from making the decisions necessary to protect us.

And I am hopeful that some time from now, after the next Administration has had the chance to review the decisions made and the legal advice provided, it will acknowledge that despite any policy differences, the national security lawyers in this Administration acted professionally and in good faith and that the country was safer as a result.

The loyal opposition, of course, remains as important a part of democracy as the majority in power. In that regard, I take comfort in the fact that whether in office or not, many members of this Society will remain a part of the public debate and will help ensure that the next Administration acts responsibly and effectively to protect our country and to protect the ideals on which it is based. For that, and for your support based on the principles that support this Society, I am grateful, and I can say with certainty that the Nation is grateful.

Democracy In China: What It Will Take

It's amazing what China gets away with. Thousands of Tibetans are still missing, presumably in concentration camps. Christians have joined the list of minorities who have their organs harvested in Chinese prisons. China's spies computer-hack anyone who so much as polishes a US Government doorknob. Peasant uprisings over government unjustice are brutally suppressed. But we don't hear about it.


Is it because Americans don't care? Or is it a media cover-up? Both. China holds the majority of our skyrocketing debt and the American elite enjoy outsourcing to Chinese sweatshops. We've got a good little thing going: China gives us cheap plastic toys and we give them lots of money. Nevermind the nuclear submarine and space technology they've stolen, or their poisoned fish that end up on our dinner plates. It's easy to cover these things up when the American people think these foreign events have no effect on us.


But of course these things effect us. There's no doubt China is a rising star even as we are falling. Their malevolent words and actions have proven they would love to see us crushed. Anyone paying attention knows we are no ally. What will the same communist country that slaughters anyone who preaches democracy do when it has risen to the top?


We should intently look at those persecuted champions of freedom of speech and religion inside China. These people are the key to our problem with China. It isn't coincidence that the founder of China's New Democracy Party was finally locked away for a seemingly paltry offense: criticizing China's internet firewalls. This “great wall of China” blocks billions of people from free information. If the common Chinese citizen could freely access information, find out about the Tianenman Square massacre, about the massive government corruption, about what democratic countries really are, if they could freely converse with people around the globe, imagine how empowering this would be. People are controlled by removing their freedoms of speech and religion, but this is impossible if they have freedom of information. Victor Hugo declared, “The printing press will destroy the church.” New technological means for communication have been the means of shrugging off the dictator throughout history.


So why not hack China? They've already given us an excuse to. They wouldn't dare react harshly, for if our economy gets a cough they get a cold. Indeed Beijing's stock market is worth less than half what it was preceding the Olympics. We have Al Gore who invented the internet; how hard would it be to crack the great wall? Which brings us back to my first point: American public's apathetic attitude and corporate America's complicity. How do we crack that? Boycott Walmart?


Tariffs on imports would go a long way, but the simple solution, before we go about emancipating China, is to emancipate ourselves. Are we really so knowledgeable? Are we so democratic? Do we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

-B-Media

“Fairness Doctrine” = Conservative Censorship

Friday, November 21, 2008

Obama’s administration is currently vetting for a suitable politician to sit on the five-person FCC board and tip its majority to favor his policies. Once that is accomplished, the FCC is expected to reinstate the unfair “Fairness Doctrine” that many say will wipe out talk radio as we now know it, silencing one of the only forums for conservative views left.

The “Fairness Doctrine” was originally created in 1949 to protect freedom of speech and encourage discussion of controversial subjects by preventing the limited radio bandwidths available at that time from being monopolized by a viewpoint and ignoring the others. It instead required all stations that aired political commentary to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” This usually meant that a station had to either invite one guest on to briefly discuss their opposing point of view or to air a short segment doing the same. A station failing to do so could be shut down by the revocation of that outlet’s broadcast license.

As the decades passed, however, the “Fairness Doctrine” started to show three major flaws that actually prevented its very purpose of ensuring freedom of speech and the equal airing of viewpoints:

All political viewpoints are already equally available today. When the “Fairness Doctrine” was created there were very few radio and television channels available. If these stations all showed only one viewpoint, it was next to impossible for the other viewpoints to be heard. Today, however, with the advent of advanced television, radio, satellite, internet and even cell phone technology, there are millions if not billions of media channels available for all imaginable viewpoints to be accessed. Thus, the original argument for the “Fairness Doctrine” has become moot in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Giving the government power to judge what can be said in the media opens the door to unconstitutional censorship of viewpoints contrary to them. When a party is given power to determine what can and cannot be said in the media with the only criteria that it must be “fair and balanced,” it does not take them long to begin to abuse that power and use it to silence those media outlets critical to their policies. This happened several times during the 48 years that the “Fairness Doctrine” was in effect. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett revealed that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) Former Kennedy Administration official Bill Ruder admitted "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)

Because of its arbitrary enforcement, the “Fairness Doctrine” actually inhibits free speech and discussion of controversial subjects. As time went on, broadcast journalists began to see that the “Fairness Doctrine” was not only being used to violate the First Amendment rights of free speech/free press (which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories), but actually had the “chilling effect” of silencing media coverage of controversial topics altogether: In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find all contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, many journalists simply avoided any covering it. It was much safer to steer clear than to risk the arbitrary enforcement and punishments of the FCC.


Under the Regan administration (and in accordance with his deregulation policies), the FCC began to rethink the “Fairness Doctrine,” finding that it "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. ("FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine," Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.) Former FCC Chairman James Quello stated that "The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech." (Doug Halonen, "Twelve to Watch in 1993," Electronic Media, January 25, 1993, p. 66.) Even the liberal Washington Post agreed:

“The truth is…that this is no ‘fairness’ whatsoever in the ‘fairness’ doctrine. On the contrary, it is a chilling federal attempt to compel some undefined ‘balance’ of what ideas radio and television news programs are to include….The ‘fairness doctrine’ undercuts free, independent, sound and responsive journalism—substituting government dictates. That is deceptive, dangerous and, in a democracy, repulsive.”
(Washington Post editorial, June 24, 1987)

Democrats are openly calling for a return of the “Fairness Doctrine” so that conservative talk radio can be silenced. Months after the “Fairness Doctrine” was repealed in 1987, Rush Limbaugh’s radio show took off to a phenomenal success that is credited with saving the AM band. Many other conservative talk shows have also found a broad and lucrative base eager for their views. While some liberal shows have been attempted (Air America, Jim Hightower, Ed Schultz, etc.) few have been able to find much support. Meanwhile, the TV news shows, who were already decidedly liberal in their spin as the “Fairness Doctrine” went away, have grown even more bold in their shameless liberal-agenda spun reporting of the news (with the notable exception of Fox News). With the evident power conservative radio and the slow demise of the network TV news stations (again, with the notable exception of Fox News), several Democrat politicians have been calling for the return of the “Fairness Doctrine” so that they can silence their opposition from spreading its views.
  • Al Gore called it a “protection” that was removed during the Reagan years.

  • Democrat Senator Jeff Bingham says he wants us to return to the “Fairness Doctrine” which will ensure talk radio will be “at a higher level and more intelligent” (ie: more in support of his views).

  • When Senator Dianne Feinstein’s liberal immigration bill was defeated in 2007, she vindictively called for a return of the doctrine, stating “talk radio tends to be one-sided....It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.”

  • Democrat Senator Charles Schumer (affectionately known as “Schmucky”) had the nerve to say “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. You can’t say, ‘government hands off in one area’ to a commercial enterprise, but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

  • Other supporters of censuring conservative talk radio include Senators Richard Durbin, John Kerry and of course Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

These politicians are not calling for the same regulations as before, however. They want equal time for each viewpoint, a demand that not only will force stations to air unpopular liberal programs that will jeopardize their survival, but a demand that is unreasonable given the infinite possible sides of an issue. Such a demand is sure to drive our talk radio stations to either run out of business or switch to playing music all day. Both outcomes would please the supporters of the “Fairness Doctrine.”



Media Censorship of opposing opinions is a totalitarian institution and has no place in a democracy. Perhaps the most distressing thing about the proposed reincarnation of the "Fairness Doctrine" is the public and main-stream media's ignorance (or, in many cases, complicit silence) in recognizing it for what it really is: totalitarian censorship of of views opposing the party currently in power. One of the first things Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini and other totalitarian leaders did to ensure their political power was place strict restrictions on all media outlets against any press critical of their regimes. Our founding fathers, knowing that the media contained the power to shape public perception and opinions, placed freedom of speech and freedom of press as the first and most important right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. This wise foresight has kept America as one of the very few homes of freedom and liberty throughout the world's last two and a half centuries. Some liberal politicians, in their push for socialist power, are completely willing to give up our nation's heritage of free markets and press in their blind thirst for power.


Once again, as part of the few that actually understand and appreciate our Constitution and system of government and society, it rests upon us to cut through the "newspeak" of our socialist-seeking media and politicians and reveal to our family, friends and neighbors what is actually going on. The "Fairness Doctrine" is not about "fairness and balance" but about censurship. You can be sure that should the "Fairness Doctrine" return, we will not see "equal time and treatment" given to conservative viewpoints on CNN or the New York Times. How long will it take before individual citizens sharing their views with their neighors will be cited by the government for being "biased and unfair"? How long until our freedom of demostration will be infrindged upon in the name of "fairness and balance"? Americans! Take back crontrol of your government and demand that they uphold the Constitution!

Articles:
When 'fairness' means 'censorship'
The Fairness Doctrine at Work
Blackout of Left’s “Fairness” Doctrine Push

 
 
 

Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.


http://digitalnetworkarmy.com
 
Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).