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:


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 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

[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.


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.
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).