Philippians 4:4 "Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice." This isn't going to be anything lengthy or elaborate, but I want to say we are a blessed people and we have a lot to rejoice in the Lord about. I was looking up the word "rejoice" in the Webster's Dictionary and it means to be glad and happy. As Christians, we should be happy in the Lord. We have so much to be thankful for. Even though in this life we face trials and tribulations and are perplexed on every hand, we can still rejoice in the Lord. Why? There are a multitude of reasons. First of all, we should rejoice because we've beeen saved and our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life. That's enough for a lifetime of rejoicing right there in itself. John 3:16 tells us that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Why would God ever love us to the point that he would send His son to die on the cross that we might be redeemed from sin? There's no earthly reason why He should. It's just the fact that God loves us and we can rejoice in the fact God loves us unconditionally. Not only that but God has prepared for us a mansion as John 14 tells about. Our eternal destiny is in Heaven. Those that are saved will spend eternity in Heaven. We'll be praising the Lamb of God for all that he's done for us. We'll be praising God because He's worthy to be praised. That's something to rejoice in.
There are so many reasons that we should rejoice. I probably couldn't begin to name them. Not only should we rejoice in salvation and Heaven, but we can rejoice in the people God's brought in our lives. God's given us earthly mothers and fathers who so love us dearly. Our mothers and fathers provided for us and took care of us when we weren't able to fend for ourselves. They took us to the House of God so we could worship the Lord and hear the preaching of the Word of God. They sacrificed for us and gave us their very best simply because they loved us. Those that lived in a Godly home had a goodly heritage. There have been many parents that have prayed and wept for their children before the Lord. God's answered their prayers and God's saved their children and used them for great things in the work of God. God's good to us. God has also given us the household of faith in which we have the brethren in whom we can fellowship with. God says we are to love the brethren. I'm thankful we have a group of people in the House of God whom we can fellowship with and share our burdens with. I'm also thankful for the pastor God's given us. God's placed a pastor in the House of God so he can lead and guide the flock of God. Where would we be without the leadership of a pastor? I couldn't begin to imagine.
I'm also thankful for America and how God's bountifully blessed this nation. When I compare this great nation in comparison with other nations around the world, I have much to be thankful for. There are numerous countries that don't enjoy the freedom that we so far enjoy. The way things are headed, America is quickly losing it's freedoms, but as of right now America's still the greatest country on the face of the eath and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. When I take a look at America over the last several decades and see the innovation that's taken place in the advancement in so many areas of our country such as technology, many of the comforts of life we enjoy, we have so much to rejoice in. I agree the comforts of life don't bring happiness to man. However, when I see all the conveniences we enjoy in this life today it shows me we have a great God who's mindful of us. We have so much to be grateful for and rejoice in. These are just a few things that we as God's people can rejoice in. I hope you have a great Lord's Day.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
No Foreign Money Should be Donated to Political Campaigns
(World Net Daily) I read an interesting article from the founder of World Net Daily, Joseph Farah, earlier this week. He was speaking of the issue concerning foreign donations and the allegations that are being made by the Democratic Party concerning the source of the GOP donations. He claims that the Democrats are "shocked, shocked" to find out foreign donations are making their way into our political system. President Barack Obama himself raised the ugly specter of foreign donations at a Philadelphia fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee this week, saying Republicans in Congress "are being helped along this year by special-interest groups that are spending unlimited amounts...without ever disclosing who's behind all these attack ads. You don't know. It could be the oil industry. It could be the insurance industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations." The man that made that statement was the same guy who in 2008 didn't accept public financing so he could raise as much money as he wanted and apparently from whomever he wanted--including at least one documented case of contributions from the Palestinian Authority. Rush Limbaugh made an interesting comment this week when he said, "Speaking of foreign donations, we don't even know whether or not Obama is a foreign donation." Speaking of accepting foreign donations, they've accepted foreign donations to their politcal campaigns themselves. During the 1996 presidential election, China funneled money for Bill Clinton's presidential re-election bid. The Democrats have nothing to speak about because they're guilty themselves of accepting foreign donations.
MoveOn.org is attacking Republican Mark Kirk, who is seeking Obama's old Senate seat in Illinois. In the spot, an announcer says the "Chamber of Commerce", which is also backing some Democrats, is spending $75 million to help Republicans like Kirk get elected. Here's what an announcer says: "And where has the chamber been getting some of their money lately? From foreign corporations in countries like China, Russia, and India, the same companies that threaten American jobs. It's time to connect the dots." In a particular ad released over the weekend, the Democratic National Committee made this charge: "Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie--they're Bush cronies. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--they're shills for big business. And they're stealing our democracy. Spending millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress. It appears they're even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections. It's incredible, Republicans benefitting from secret foreign money. Tell the Bush crowd and the Chamber of Commerce--stop stealing our democracy."
The Democrats don't have a leg to stand on. They've had their hands in foreign money as well. Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, and Mochtar Riady were involved in contributing foreign money to Democratic candidates. How about Chinagate? China funneled money to the Democratic National Party in 1992 and 1996 to help elect Bill Clinton. Farah said that Bill Clinton invented it, John Kerry perfected it, and President Obama took it to new heights in 2008. Now the Democrats are supposedly "shocked" to find that foreign money is making its way into political campaigns.
As of right now I don't know whether foreign money has or is going into the Republican camp through the Chamber of Commerce. If it's not happening yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it does happen one day because both parties are sell-outs. Neither party doesn't care about our Constitution and what the laws state concerning foreign money entering political contests. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party doesn't have a leg to stand on concerning foreign money going into the Republican camp because the Democrats have been the recipients of foreign money funneling into their party.
It is an outrage that foreign money goes to any type of political campaign in America. No type of foreign money should be funneled into any U.S. political contest. The laws regarding foreign money into political campaigns should be enforced. There's no excuse for it. Any candidate or political figure that's caught channeling foreign donations into America's politcal campaigns should be fined to the fullest extent and imprisoned. It makes sense that we have laws forbidding foreign money into political campaigns--that's something for Americans to decide. There should be no foreign influence involved when it comes to political donations. However, our elected elite and our current system of government is of the globalist mentality where they view themselves as being "part of one world." Therefore, what big deal is it for China or Saudi Arabia to donate money to political campaigns? That's their mentality. It must be stopped. That's one of the reasons why we need to throw these incumbents out of office. We need elected officials that will uphold and stand by the U.S. Constitution. Is this the Democrats' best chance of holding on to their seats coming November 2nd? If it is, I hope they lose in droves.
The Rand Paul-Jack Conway Debate at Northern Kentucky University
This is the debate between Senate hopefuls Rand Paul and Jack Conway. Both candidates are running for the Senate seat of retiring Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY). Rand Paul is the Republican Party candidate and Jack Conway is the Democratic Party candidate. As of right now the race is very close. Polls are showing the race in a virtual dead heat. Some polls say Rand Paul has as much as a 3-point lead and some say Paul has a 5-point lead. This is a race many are keeping their eyes on.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Sharron Angle and Harry Reid Face-Off in Nevada Debate
(Fox News) Democratic Senator Harry Reid and Republican Sharon Angle faced off in their one and only televised debate Thursday night, both throwing punches. She said, "Man up Harry Reid." "You need to understand that we have a problem with Social Security. The Republican candidate for the Nevada U.S. Senate race was on the offensive throughout the sixty-minute exchange, accusing her opponent, Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of mismanaging Social Security in Congress. Angle supports the position of "partial privatization, which Reid opposes.
The two disagreed on most everything. Many of the topics of the debate ranged from immigration to Yucca Mountain to education to health care reform. "My opponent doesn't like any insurance companies to have to do anything." Reid said of the Tea Party Express backed Angle, "She's against mammograms, colonoscopies, and as we've heard lately insurance companies covering kids who have autism." Never calling his opponent by name, Reid referred to Angle as "extreme" on more than one occasion. She hit back hard, ripping on Reid for letting other countries join the federal law suit against Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law. "Senator Reid, you've allowed 11 foreign countries dictate our immigration laws. That's just nuts."
Angle attacked Reid on the war, saying he owed an apology to the troops, "When you said the war was lost and General Petraeus was dishonest, you demoralized our troops and endangered them, you need to apologize to them." Reid was coll in his explanation. The soft-spoken Senator who has been endorsed by Veterans of Foreign Wars said his statement was that "the war cannot be won just militarily, but economically and diplomatically." He called the surge "the right thing to do.
The two were locked in a statistical just before going into the debate. The Real Clear Politics average had each at 45.4 percent. Early voting in the silver State starts Saturday.
Bill O'Reilly's Comments on Muslims Causing 9/11 Creates an "Uproar" on the View
YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Gets Whoopi Goldberg and & Joy Behar to Walk Off The View
Fox News Commentator Bill O'Reilly, who hosts the "O'Reilly Factor" Monday through Friday at 8:00 p.m. EST, made an appearance on "The View" to promote his latest book release which is "Pinheads and Patriots". I first learned of this incident from watching the Glenn Beck Program on the Fox News Channel yesterday. Beck, O'Reilly, and Greta Van Susteran from "On the Record" covered this story. I have never watched "The View" on television but I've seen YouTube clips of various guests being on the program which have featured Laura Ingraham, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Glenn Beck, etc. I've also seen Elizabeth Hasselbeck, one of the co-hosts, interviewed on "Hannity" at different times in the past. Many times the panel of ladies which features Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and Elizabeth Hasselbeck, to name a few, discuss prominent issues in the political arena. Bill O'Reilly was on the "View" to promote Pinheads and Patriots. O'Reilly was asked the question about why are President Obama's poll numbers falling. O'Reilly explained that it was partially due to the fact that the economy is tanking. I believe it was either Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg which stated that Obama inherited the mess. O'Reilly pointed out that the statute of limitations has run out and when your administration has added another trillion to the deficit and nothing works, you can't blame the "pinheads" of the previous administration. I'm paraphrasing somewhat. Bill O'Reilly also mentioned another reason why he believes President Obama's poll numbers are dropping is because President Obama doesn't seem to relate very well to the American people. In other words, the gulf between Obama and the American people are widening. O'Reilly was asked to give an example. O'Reilly pointed out to the latest attempts by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build a mosque near Ground Zero. O'Reilly stated that the Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. However, he questioned the wisdom of building that mosque due to thousands being killed in the Twin Towers on 9/11. Many family members of those killed on 9/11 were opposed to the building of the mosque since it was Muslim jihadists who caused the attacks.
O'Reilly mentioned a poll which states that nearly 70% of Americans are opposed to building the mosque near Ground Zero. He mentioned how Obama would make the statement that Muslims have the constitutional right to build the mosque but would downplay the fact that it wouldn't be prudent to build the mosque near Ground Zero. O'Reilly believed it affected the American people's perception of President Obama. Now we're at the climax of the event. O'Reilly stated that it was Muslims that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. They were the ones that caused 9/11. Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar would furious. They and O'Reilly were in a shouting match over what he said. O'Reilly was very bold in making his point. Finally, both Behar and Goldberg stormed away from the studio and it was a few minutes before they both returned. Barbara Walters pointed out to the audience that what they were witnessing isn't something that should ever happen. She said that we should be able to debate and discuss issues without screaming and washing your hands from one another. She criticized her colleagues and rightfully so. Both Behar and Goldberg acted foolishly. You could tell who the Far Left women are on "The View." Walters pointed out to O'Reilly that he didn't point out that it was Muslim extremists who initiated 9/11. O'Reilly said only Muslims but he said he felt the American people knew what he was talking about. He felt after ten years the American people knew he (O'Reilly) was referring to Muslim extremists. I believe the American people do understand the point you're making, Mr. O'Reilly. It's Behar and Goldberg that don't appear to understand. O'Reilly made a historical reference and mentioned that in World War II, it was the Japanese that bombed Pearl Harbor. We don't use the phrase "Japanese extremists." However, I believe the American people recognize that not all Japanese were aggressors nor all Japanese people believed that Japan was right in bombing Pearl Harbor.
First of all, I don't know if there is such a thing as a "moderate Muslim". If there are moderate Muslims, I'm not aware of it, yet. I recognize all Muslims aren't terrorists, but all Muslims don't participate in the act of Jihad, either. Nor are all Muslims asked to participate in Jihad. The Koran is an extreme book which states that Muslims are to kill the infidel, which are those that are opposed to Islam. O'Reilly rightfully pointed out that the "moderate" Muslims haven't stood up to those radical jihadists in the Muslim world. He said if "moderate" Muslims did stand up against the jihadists, then we probably wouldn't be experiencing the problems we're facing right now with Muslim jihadists. It's pathetic how the Far Left wants to be the apologists for the Muslims. They want to make sure that everybody understands there's a "distinction" between Muslim jihadists and the normal everyday Muslim. I have a question to ask: why doesn't the Left make a distinction between normal Christians and those that would label themselves as Christians and bomb an "abortion" clinic for example. The liberal media wants to use a brush and paint all Christians as being one and the same. They also do the same for the Tea Party Express. They make the statement that Tea Partiers are racists when it actuality, race isn't what represents the Tea Party. The Tea Party is comprised of Americans who are tired of huge deficit spending by the government and the government intruding into every aspect of our lives. The Tea Party is also comprised of various races as well. I don't doubt there are a few in the Tea Party rallies that are racists, but that doesn't define the Tea Party as a whole. The media makes those wild accusations against Christians and Tea Partiers to paint a negative image for the American people as well as to marginalize their opponents. The media wants to label us as a fringe group that doesn't represent America as a whole. They want to lump Christians in with David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Timothy McVeigh, to name a few.
The Progressive media has an agenda and that is to marginalize Christians, Tea Partiers or anyone who is opposed to the Progressive, socialist agenda in America. That's why there are such vicious attacks launched against those who love freedom and liberty. The government is out to control our thoughts, our actions, and our moves. They are trying to tell us what food we should and shouldn't eat and how high to set our thermostats at night. I don't agree with Bill O'Reilly on all issues. I believe many times he's too soft on President Obama and the Progressive agenda of the Democratic Party. However, I applaud his stand in stating the truth that it was the "Muslim terrorists" who committed 9/11. I would like to see O'Reilly make stands like that more often. I do believe in being fair when it comes to criticizing elected officials. I don't believe in assigning blame unless that politician is clearly at fault. Nevertheless, right is right and wrong is wrong regardless whether it says Democrat or Republican; or liberal and conservative. The truth owes no allegiance to a party or man.
Fox News Commentator Bill O'Reilly, who hosts the "O'Reilly Factor" Monday through Friday at 8:00 p.m. EST, made an appearance on "The View" to promote his latest book release which is "Pinheads and Patriots". I first learned of this incident from watching the Glenn Beck Program on the Fox News Channel yesterday. Beck, O'Reilly, and Greta Van Susteran from "On the Record" covered this story. I have never watched "The View" on television but I've seen YouTube clips of various guests being on the program which have featured Laura Ingraham, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Glenn Beck, etc. I've also seen Elizabeth Hasselbeck, one of the co-hosts, interviewed on "Hannity" at different times in the past. Many times the panel of ladies which features Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and Elizabeth Hasselbeck, to name a few, discuss prominent issues in the political arena. Bill O'Reilly was on the "View" to promote Pinheads and Patriots. O'Reilly was asked the question about why are President Obama's poll numbers falling. O'Reilly explained that it was partially due to the fact that the economy is tanking. I believe it was either Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg which stated that Obama inherited the mess. O'Reilly pointed out that the statute of limitations has run out and when your administration has added another trillion to the deficit and nothing works, you can't blame the "pinheads" of the previous administration. I'm paraphrasing somewhat. Bill O'Reilly also mentioned another reason why he believes President Obama's poll numbers are dropping is because President Obama doesn't seem to relate very well to the American people. In other words, the gulf between Obama and the American people are widening. O'Reilly was asked to give an example. O'Reilly pointed out to the latest attempts by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build a mosque near Ground Zero. O'Reilly stated that the Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. However, he questioned the wisdom of building that mosque due to thousands being killed in the Twin Towers on 9/11. Many family members of those killed on 9/11 were opposed to the building of the mosque since it was Muslim jihadists who caused the attacks.
O'Reilly mentioned a poll which states that nearly 70% of Americans are opposed to building the mosque near Ground Zero. He mentioned how Obama would make the statement that Muslims have the constitutional right to build the mosque but would downplay the fact that it wouldn't be prudent to build the mosque near Ground Zero. O'Reilly believed it affected the American people's perception of President Obama. Now we're at the climax of the event. O'Reilly stated that it was Muslims that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. They were the ones that caused 9/11. Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar would furious. They and O'Reilly were in a shouting match over what he said. O'Reilly was very bold in making his point. Finally, both Behar and Goldberg stormed away from the studio and it was a few minutes before they both returned. Barbara Walters pointed out to the audience that what they were witnessing isn't something that should ever happen. She said that we should be able to debate and discuss issues without screaming and washing your hands from one another. She criticized her colleagues and rightfully so. Both Behar and Goldberg acted foolishly. You could tell who the Far Left women are on "The View." Walters pointed out to O'Reilly that he didn't point out that it was Muslim extremists who initiated 9/11. O'Reilly said only Muslims but he said he felt the American people knew what he was talking about. He felt after ten years the American people knew he (O'Reilly) was referring to Muslim extremists. I believe the American people do understand the point you're making, Mr. O'Reilly. It's Behar and Goldberg that don't appear to understand. O'Reilly made a historical reference and mentioned that in World War II, it was the Japanese that bombed Pearl Harbor. We don't use the phrase "Japanese extremists." However, I believe the American people recognize that not all Japanese were aggressors nor all Japanese people believed that Japan was right in bombing Pearl Harbor.
First of all, I don't know if there is such a thing as a "moderate Muslim". If there are moderate Muslims, I'm not aware of it, yet. I recognize all Muslims aren't terrorists, but all Muslims don't participate in the act of Jihad, either. Nor are all Muslims asked to participate in Jihad. The Koran is an extreme book which states that Muslims are to kill the infidel, which are those that are opposed to Islam. O'Reilly rightfully pointed out that the "moderate" Muslims haven't stood up to those radical jihadists in the Muslim world. He said if "moderate" Muslims did stand up against the jihadists, then we probably wouldn't be experiencing the problems we're facing right now with Muslim jihadists. It's pathetic how the Far Left wants to be the apologists for the Muslims. They want to make sure that everybody understands there's a "distinction" between Muslim jihadists and the normal everyday Muslim. I have a question to ask: why doesn't the Left make a distinction between normal Christians and those that would label themselves as Christians and bomb an "abortion" clinic for example. The liberal media wants to use a brush and paint all Christians as being one and the same. They also do the same for the Tea Party Express. They make the statement that Tea Partiers are racists when it actuality, race isn't what represents the Tea Party. The Tea Party is comprised of Americans who are tired of huge deficit spending by the government and the government intruding into every aspect of our lives. The Tea Party is also comprised of various races as well. I don't doubt there are a few in the Tea Party rallies that are racists, but that doesn't define the Tea Party as a whole. The media makes those wild accusations against Christians and Tea Partiers to paint a negative image for the American people as well as to marginalize their opponents. The media wants to label us as a fringe group that doesn't represent America as a whole. They want to lump Christians in with David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Timothy McVeigh, to name a few.
The Progressive media has an agenda and that is to marginalize Christians, Tea Partiers or anyone who is opposed to the Progressive, socialist agenda in America. That's why there are such vicious attacks launched against those who love freedom and liberty. The government is out to control our thoughts, our actions, and our moves. They are trying to tell us what food we should and shouldn't eat and how high to set our thermostats at night. I don't agree with Bill O'Reilly on all issues. I believe many times he's too soft on President Obama and the Progressive agenda of the Democratic Party. However, I applaud his stand in stating the truth that it was the "Muslim terrorists" who committed 9/11. I would like to see O'Reilly make stands like that more often. I do believe in being fair when it comes to criticizing elected officials. I don't believe in assigning blame unless that politician is clearly at fault. Nevertheless, right is right and wrong is wrong regardless whether it says Democrat or Republican; or liberal and conservative. The truth owes no allegiance to a party or man.
Federal Judge Blocks "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Military Policy on Homosexuals
(USA Today) A federal judge Tuesday ordered an immediate end to enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on homosexuals serving openly in the armed fources. What happens next, however, is unclear. Neither the Pentagon nor the Justice Department, which has 60 days to appeal, would comment. Although President Obama says he opposes the 1993 law that set the military's policy on homosexuals, he has ordered the Pentagon to study the effect a repeal would have on the armed forces, and the results of that study aren't due until December. The White House claims that Congress, not the courts, needs to repeal the law. It's hard for me to believe Obama really believes that. I believe Obama would like to see that law repealed regardless of the method used. If the courts don't overturn the law, President Obama will probably sometime sign an executive order ending "don't ask, don't tell." He promised homosexuals rights that he'll repeal that law. I believe sometime in his presidency it will be repealed. If not now, it won't be too far in the distant future. This particular law that was written as a compromise in 1993 states that homosexual servicemembers aren't to reveal their "sexual orientation", and it requires their superiors not to ask unless they believe the law is being broken.
Last year, according to Bloomberg News, the military discharged 259 men and 169 women under the law. Nicholson's group says 14,000 servicemembers have been discharged under the policy since it took effect. "The president will continue to work....to change the law that he believes is fundamentally unfair," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. Yale law professor William Eskridge said that with her ruling, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips "is stepping in to break a deadlock that the political process was unable to resolve. The ball is in the Department of Justice's court now." Phillips, in Riverside, California, ruled that enforcement of the law she had previously declared unconstitutional must be halted immediately because it "irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights." She said the policy violates a host of rights: due process, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for rederess.
Conservative groups such as the Family Research Council, denounced the ruling. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, accused Phillips of "using the military to advance a liberal social agenda. At the Justice Department, spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler declined to comment because officials are reviewing the ruling. Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith also declined to comment because the ruling had just been issued. This case was brought in 2004 by the gay-rights group Log Cabin Republicans. Dan Woods, a lawyer for the group, said Phillips' ruling "reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the military who are fighting and dying for our country."
Some people have wondered will the Justice Department make an appeal. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, heads the Justice Department. Since Holder's a part of the Obama administration, I would think they would be in favor of the Court's ruling. Congress isn't going to vote to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" before the November 2nd election. I predict that Congress won't have to vote on this issue. They'll probably allow the court to settle this issue. With the court system becoming more and more alienated from the American public at-large, it's making our legislative branch (Congress) irrelevant. The court system is becoming the "new tyranny" in America.
Last year, according to Bloomberg News, the military discharged 259 men and 169 women under the law. Nicholson's group says 14,000 servicemembers have been discharged under the policy since it took effect. "The president will continue to work....to change the law that he believes is fundamentally unfair," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. Yale law professor William Eskridge said that with her ruling, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips "is stepping in to break a deadlock that the political process was unable to resolve. The ball is in the Department of Justice's court now." Phillips, in Riverside, California, ruled that enforcement of the law she had previously declared unconstitutional must be halted immediately because it "irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights." She said the policy violates a host of rights: due process, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for rederess.
Conservative groups such as the Family Research Council, denounced the ruling. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, accused Phillips of "using the military to advance a liberal social agenda. At the Justice Department, spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler declined to comment because officials are reviewing the ruling. Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith also declined to comment because the ruling had just been issued. This case was brought in 2004 by the gay-rights group Log Cabin Republicans. Dan Woods, a lawyer for the group, said Phillips' ruling "reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the military who are fighting and dying for our country."
Some people have wondered will the Justice Department make an appeal. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, heads the Justice Department. Since Holder's a part of the Obama administration, I would think they would be in favor of the Court's ruling. Congress isn't going to vote to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" before the November 2nd election. I predict that Congress won't have to vote on this issue. They'll probably allow the court to settle this issue. With the court system becoming more and more alienated from the American public at-large, it's making our legislative branch (Congress) irrelevant. The court system is becoming the "new tyranny" in America.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Christine O'Donnell
YouTube - Delaware Senate Debate 10/13/10 Part 1 - Christine O'Donnell & Chris Coons
Christine O'Donnell was born on Auugst 27, 1969. She is the Republican Party nominee for the seat in the special election in the U.S. Senate, which used to be occupied by vice-president Joe Bidenin Delaware. She graduated from Moorestown High School in 1987. She grew up in a Roman Catholic family in Moorestown, NJ as the 5th of 6 children. She attended Fairleigh Dickinson University following graduation from high school. She didn't finish her degree until 2010. O'Donnell was a marketing consultant, worked in public relations, and appeared as a political commentator on several news media outlets, including Fox News. In 2006, she ran in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat in Delaware but finished third. In 2008, she was the party's nominee for the U.S. Senate general election, losing to incumbent Joe Biden 65% to 35%.
This year, with endorsements and financial support from the Tea Party Movement, she defeated nine-term Republican Congressional incumbent Mike Castle on September 14th by six points. It was a huge surprise over a Republican Congressional veteran. Christine O'Donnell supports the Right to Life Movement. She is pro-life and is opposed to pornography. On September 18, Bill Maher, who hosts "Politically Incorrect" aired a video clip from 1999 when O'Donnell confessed she dabbled in witchcraft 20+ years ago. She's received a lot of flack from that clip. She is presently 19 points behind her Democratic challenger, Chris Coons, who once wrote a college paper and described himself as a "bearded Marxist." Coons is a socialist progressive in his political views.
I'm going to list some of the issues and stated positions that Christine O'Donnell supports. If you want to know more about Christine O'Donnell, go onto her website to learn more about her.
1. Jobs - Christine O'Donnell believes jobs are created when businesses are freed from endless taxes and bureaucratic red tape.
2. Security - She believes terrorism is an act of war requiring the full force of our intelligence and military resources rather than granting terrorists precious constitutional rights and outsourcing foreign policy to the U.N.
3. Debt - Believes heaping trillions in debt on the backs of our grandchildren is immoral and that Congress is elected to make the hard choices to preserve our nation's future prosperity.
4. Taxes - Will fight to remove the crushing tax burden faced by American families and businesses and dramatically simplify the tax code.
5. Life - Strongly believes in protecting the sanctity of life at ALL stages.
6. Energy - Supports a market-based approach to energy solutions that will keep competition high and energy prices low.
7. Values - Believes our country was founded on core values of faith, family, and freedom and will fight to defend those values. Will always fight for maximum choice for parents about where to educate their kids, including private, parochial and charter schools or in the home.
8. Spending - Believes unrestrained government spending is eroding our freedom, destroying our economy and ceding our sovereignty to foreign debt holders like China.
9. Accountability - Denounces corrupt pork-barrel politics, including earmarks, and will fight for increased transparency and performance information for every Federal program.
10. Healthcare - Believes that the solution to the healthcare crisis is less government meddling in the doctor/patient relationship, more competition in the insurance market and more choice for families about their health plan.
11. Gun control - Christine's strong support of 2nd Amendment rights has earned her an "A" rating from the NRA.
Christine O'Donnell was born on Auugst 27, 1969. She is the Republican Party nominee for the seat in the special election in the U.S. Senate, which used to be occupied by vice-president Joe Bidenin Delaware. She graduated from Moorestown High School in 1987. She grew up in a Roman Catholic family in Moorestown, NJ as the 5th of 6 children. She attended Fairleigh Dickinson University following graduation from high school. She didn't finish her degree until 2010. O'Donnell was a marketing consultant, worked in public relations, and appeared as a political commentator on several news media outlets, including Fox News. In 2006, she ran in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat in Delaware but finished third. In 2008, she was the party's nominee for the U.S. Senate general election, losing to incumbent Joe Biden 65% to 35%.
This year, with endorsements and financial support from the Tea Party Movement, she defeated nine-term Republican Congressional incumbent Mike Castle on September 14th by six points. It was a huge surprise over a Republican Congressional veteran. Christine O'Donnell supports the Right to Life Movement. She is pro-life and is opposed to pornography. On September 18, Bill Maher, who hosts "Politically Incorrect" aired a video clip from 1999 when O'Donnell confessed she dabbled in witchcraft 20+ years ago. She's received a lot of flack from that clip. She is presently 19 points behind her Democratic challenger, Chris Coons, who once wrote a college paper and described himself as a "bearded Marxist." Coons is a socialist progressive in his political views.
I'm going to list some of the issues and stated positions that Christine O'Donnell supports. If you want to know more about Christine O'Donnell, go onto her website to learn more about her.
1. Jobs - Christine O'Donnell believes jobs are created when businesses are freed from endless taxes and bureaucratic red tape.
2. Security - She believes terrorism is an act of war requiring the full force of our intelligence and military resources rather than granting terrorists precious constitutional rights and outsourcing foreign policy to the U.N.
3. Debt - Believes heaping trillions in debt on the backs of our grandchildren is immoral and that Congress is elected to make the hard choices to preserve our nation's future prosperity.
4. Taxes - Will fight to remove the crushing tax burden faced by American families and businesses and dramatically simplify the tax code.
5. Life - Strongly believes in protecting the sanctity of life at ALL stages.
6. Energy - Supports a market-based approach to energy solutions that will keep competition high and energy prices low.
7. Values - Believes our country was founded on core values of faith, family, and freedom and will fight to defend those values. Will always fight for maximum choice for parents about where to educate their kids, including private, parochial and charter schools or in the home.
8. Spending - Believes unrestrained government spending is eroding our freedom, destroying our economy and ceding our sovereignty to foreign debt holders like China.
9. Accountability - Denounces corrupt pork-barrel politics, including earmarks, and will fight for increased transparency and performance information for every Federal program.
10. Healthcare - Believes that the solution to the healthcare crisis is less government meddling in the doctor/patient relationship, more competition in the insurance market and more choice for families about their health plan.
11. Gun control - Christine's strong support of 2nd Amendment rights has earned her an "A" rating from the NRA.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Jack Conway
Jack Conway is the Attorney General of Kentucky who's running against Rand Paul for the open seat of retiring Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY). Jack Conway ran for the seat of Attorney General in 2007 and won the seat. He's been Attorney General since 2008. Jack Conway was born in Louisville Kentucky on July 5, 1969. He's the eldest of four children. Tom and Barbara Conway are his parents. Conway is a graduate of St. Xavier High. Conway received an undergraduate degree from Duke University in 1991 and worked as a legislative aide to the U.S. House Banking Committee from 1991 to 1997. He graduated with a Juris Doctor degree from George Washington University Law School in 1995 and worked as a legal counsel and deputy cabinet secretary for the Paul Patton gubernatorial administration from 1995-2001. In 2001, he worked as a private attorney for Conlife Sandman Sullivan. Conway and his father are partners in thoroughbred racehorse Stately Victor.
In 2002, Jack Conway ran for the 3rd Congressional district seat in 2002 but lost to incumbent Anne Northup. Conway is married to Elizabeth Davenport Conway and they have a one year old daughter, Eva. The polls show that Conway has gained some ground within the last few weeks. Rand Paul's lead has been from one to six points. Other polls have showed a virtual dead heat. Here are the stated positions of Jack Conway.
1. Social Security - As Senator, Jack will oppose any effort to privatize Social Security. He believes Social Security has to be maintained as a public program that provides guaranteed retirement benefits. He thinks those benefits should be maintained and protected from any outside risks associated with the financial markets. Jack supports the new health care law that expands prescription drug coverage for seniors. This new health care law will eliminate the "donut hole" over the next ten years, and approximately 129,000 Kentucky seniors with high prescription drug costs will receive a $250 check this year.
2. Small Businesses - Jack Conway says he is committed to making more credit available for business owners to hire new workers and expand their businesses. He says we should never have another bailout like the TARP bailout and he feels it's time to focus on job creation here in Kentucky. Jack says he'll create a Small Business Loan Fund, Capitalized with $30 billion which is new spending, not TARP funds. He says he'll allow small and medium-sized community and regional banks and credit unions (with less than $10 billion in total assets) to purchase capital at reduced rates from the Treasury. Banks and credit unions would get lower rates based on how much small business lending they do. Banks and credit unions would have to submit quarterly reports detailing their small business lending activities. He would also allow credit unions to participate in the Fund and raise the cap on member-business lending (MBL) to expand access to credit for small businesses. Current law limits credit-union lending to member businesses to 12.25 percent of the union's total assets and exempts loans under $50,000. Jack would raise that cap to 25 percent and would raise the exemption bar to $250,000. He also says he would make it a priority to cut federal red tape, reduce paperwork and streamline government services for small business.
3. The Deficit - Jack Conway has a plan to save $430 billion over the next ten years without raising taxes. He would save $200 billion, by giving Medicare the ability to negotiate for bulk rate discounts on prescription drugs. In 2004 when Congress created the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, the pharmaceutical industry successfully lobbied for a provision that said Medicare could not negotiate for lower prices on prescription drugs like the Veterans Administration and Medicaid already do. Consequently, this deal is estimated to protect up to $24 billion of pharmaceutical profits every year. That is taxpayer money that could be used to lower the cost of prescription drugs for seniors and reduce the budget deficit. The first piece of legislation Jack would introduce would be to repeal the special interest sweetheart deal for the pharmaceutical industry. A report by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare estimates this would save $200 billion over ten years. Jack has also proposed creating state-level Medicare fraud task forces that would be better equipped to root out waste, fraud, and abuse because they are familiar with the provider networks and could detect-billing irregularities more easily. Jack Conway says he wants to close corporate tax loopholes and shut down offshore tax shelters to so that big corporations pay their fair share and create jobs in Kentucky, not the Cayman Islands.
4. Wall Street Reform - Earlier this year, Jack Conway supported a bill that would place a one-time windfall tax on bonuses for any executive at a company that received TARP bailout funds, because he thinks it's offensive that bailed-out bankers are taking huge bonuses at the same time they're refusing to lend to struggling small businesses. To address the shortage of small business lending, Jack Conway has proposed a $30 billion Small Business Loan Fund to go around Wall Street and get capital directly to our community banks so they can give loans to Kentucky small businesses that want to create jobs but need the financing to do it.
In 2002, Jack Conway ran for the 3rd Congressional district seat in 2002 but lost to incumbent Anne Northup. Conway is married to Elizabeth Davenport Conway and they have a one year old daughter, Eva. The polls show that Conway has gained some ground within the last few weeks. Rand Paul's lead has been from one to six points. Other polls have showed a virtual dead heat. Here are the stated positions of Jack Conway.
1. Social Security - As Senator, Jack will oppose any effort to privatize Social Security. He believes Social Security has to be maintained as a public program that provides guaranteed retirement benefits. He thinks those benefits should be maintained and protected from any outside risks associated with the financial markets. Jack supports the new health care law that expands prescription drug coverage for seniors. This new health care law will eliminate the "donut hole" over the next ten years, and approximately 129,000 Kentucky seniors with high prescription drug costs will receive a $250 check this year.
2. Small Businesses - Jack Conway says he is committed to making more credit available for business owners to hire new workers and expand their businesses. He says we should never have another bailout like the TARP bailout and he feels it's time to focus on job creation here in Kentucky. Jack says he'll create a Small Business Loan Fund, Capitalized with $30 billion which is new spending, not TARP funds. He says he'll allow small and medium-sized community and regional banks and credit unions (with less than $10 billion in total assets) to purchase capital at reduced rates from the Treasury. Banks and credit unions would get lower rates based on how much small business lending they do. Banks and credit unions would have to submit quarterly reports detailing their small business lending activities. He would also allow credit unions to participate in the Fund and raise the cap on member-business lending (MBL) to expand access to credit for small businesses. Current law limits credit-union lending to member businesses to 12.25 percent of the union's total assets and exempts loans under $50,000. Jack would raise that cap to 25 percent and would raise the exemption bar to $250,000. He also says he would make it a priority to cut federal red tape, reduce paperwork and streamline government services for small business.
3. The Deficit - Jack Conway has a plan to save $430 billion over the next ten years without raising taxes. He would save $200 billion, by giving Medicare the ability to negotiate for bulk rate discounts on prescription drugs. In 2004 when Congress created the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, the pharmaceutical industry successfully lobbied for a provision that said Medicare could not negotiate for lower prices on prescription drugs like the Veterans Administration and Medicaid already do. Consequently, this deal is estimated to protect up to $24 billion of pharmaceutical profits every year. That is taxpayer money that could be used to lower the cost of prescription drugs for seniors and reduce the budget deficit. The first piece of legislation Jack would introduce would be to repeal the special interest sweetheart deal for the pharmaceutical industry. A report by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare estimates this would save $200 billion over ten years. Jack has also proposed creating state-level Medicare fraud task forces that would be better equipped to root out waste, fraud, and abuse because they are familiar with the provider networks and could detect-billing irregularities more easily. Jack Conway says he wants to close corporate tax loopholes and shut down offshore tax shelters to so that big corporations pay their fair share and create jobs in Kentucky, not the Cayman Islands.
4. Wall Street Reform - Earlier this year, Jack Conway supported a bill that would place a one-time windfall tax on bonuses for any executive at a company that received TARP bailout funds, because he thinks it's offensive that bailed-out bankers are taking huge bonuses at the same time they're refusing to lend to struggling small businesses. To address the shortage of small business lending, Jack Conway has proposed a $30 billion Small Business Loan Fund to go around Wall Street and get capital directly to our community banks so they can give loans to Kentucky small businesses that want to create jobs but need the financing to do it.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Rand Paul
Beginning now until election day on November 2nd I'll will be featuring posts of various political candidates nationwide running for the U.S. Senate. I will be featuring new candidates running for the Senate; not incumbents. I will briefly mention about the background of the candidate, then I'll list their stated, yes stated positions on the issues. That doesn't mean that those are the issues they'll fight for if they win the November 2nd election. I'm just listing what their supposed stance is on the issues. You have to decide for yourself whether you think the positions they uphold are valid in determining whether or not you vote for the candidate. I'm going to begin featuring both of the Senate candidates that are vying for the seat of retiring U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY). Since I live in Kentucky, I'll be featuring both Rand Paul and Jack Conway the next couple of days. Today I'll begin with Rand Paul.
Rand Paul resides in Bowling Green, KY with his wife and three sons. Randal Howad Paul was born on January 7, 1963 to both Ron and Carol Paul. Ron Paul is the Congressman from Texas who was a presidential candidate in 2008. Paul was born in Pennsylvania. He is one of four siblings. He lived in Pennsylvania until 1965 when his parents moved to San Antonio, Texas. Upon graduation from high school, Paul attended Baylor University in 1981. Later he attended Duke Medical School where he received his Doctor of Medicine in 1988. He finished his internship in 1993. He married in 1990 and established his practice in Bowling Green. He's an ophthalmologist. He's the Republican candidate running for U.S. Senate. He's considered a libertarian in some of his views. He beat Trey Grayson in the primary. As of present the polls show Conway and Paul in a close race. They both had a debate in Louisville on Sunday October 3rd and yesterday they had a debate at Northern Kentucky University. Paul drew some controversy immediately following the Kentucky primary when he stated he disagreed with one of the sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act concerning private business. Paul states that he abhors racism. Here's a list of some of the issues concerning the stance of Rand Paul. The list of issues was obtained from Rand Paul's campaign website.
1. Bailouts - Dr. Paul opposes all federal bailouts of private industry. America is the land of opportunity to succeed and to fail. It's time our government starts promoting responsibility.
2. National Defense - Defending our country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.
3. Inflation - And every dollar we print to service our debt, reduces the value of the money in your pocket. Rand will fight to strengthen the value of our dollar so our purchasing power is not destroyed by the sneakiest tax of all: inflation.
4. Taxes and Debt - Lowering taxes gives working men and women the ability to take control of their own lives. It allows business owners to invest in their companies, pay their employees, and create new jobs. Lower taxes encourages spending, saving, and investing--all necessary for a healthy economy.
5. Term Limits - Long term incumbency leads to politicians who seem to care more about what is best for their career than what is best for their country.
6. Privacy and Liberty - The Federal government must return to the constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights. America can prosper, preserve personal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens.
7. Sovereignty - Let's not give up our rights to those who don't share the same respect for our history and our freedoms. The U.S. government must answer only to the Constitution and the citizens protected by it.
8. Veterans - The men and women of our armed services deserve to be treated like the heroes that they are. No other group of federal employees is subject to such unfair treatment as our service men and women; and no other deserves the best.
9. Homeschooling- Rand proposes to restore the parental right to be responsible in educating children. He supports reduced taxes so that parents can allocate more of their own funds to homeschooling, if they so desire.
10. Guns and Politicians - How many politicians claim they are supporters of the 2nd amendment and then vote to restrict handguns? We need to send people to Washington that not only understand the 2nd amendment but the entire Bill of Rights.
11. Energy Innovation - If we leave our energy policy to the special interests in Washington, we will never solve our energy problems. Our energy crisis stems from too much government intervention. The solution requires allowing businesses and ideas to compete.
12. Federal Reserve - Given this incredible power to a semi-private institution, one wonders why we don't hear more about the Fed and its actions from the Congress. As Senator I would make sure that the Federal Reserve is held accountable and restore transparency to our monetary system.
13. Health Care - As a doctor I have had first-hand experience with the vast problems facing health care in America. Like other areas of the economy where the federal government wields its heavy hand, health care is over-regulated and in need of serious market reforms. As Senator, I would ensure that real free market principles are applied to fix this problem.
14. Campaign Finance Reform - Last year, over 15,000 individuals worked for organizations whose sole goal was to rip you off. No, not the mafia or Goldman Sachs, but another distinctly criminal class--Washington lobbyists. In 2008, corporations and unions spent over $3 billion to bribe officials who claim to work for you.
15. Abortion - Dr. Paul believes life begins at conception. He recognizes the most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. Dr. Paul opposes any federal funding for abortion.
16. Illegal Immigration - Dr. Paul does not support amnesty. Those who come her should respect our laws. Dr. Paul supports legal immigration and recognizes that the country has been enriched by those who seek freedom to make a life for themselves.
Rand Paul resides in Bowling Green, KY with his wife and three sons. Randal Howad Paul was born on January 7, 1963 to both Ron and Carol Paul. Ron Paul is the Congressman from Texas who was a presidential candidate in 2008. Paul was born in Pennsylvania. He is one of four siblings. He lived in Pennsylvania until 1965 when his parents moved to San Antonio, Texas. Upon graduation from high school, Paul attended Baylor University in 1981. Later he attended Duke Medical School where he received his Doctor of Medicine in 1988. He finished his internship in 1993. He married in 1990 and established his practice in Bowling Green. He's an ophthalmologist. He's the Republican candidate running for U.S. Senate. He's considered a libertarian in some of his views. He beat Trey Grayson in the primary. As of present the polls show Conway and Paul in a close race. They both had a debate in Louisville on Sunday October 3rd and yesterday they had a debate at Northern Kentucky University. Paul drew some controversy immediately following the Kentucky primary when he stated he disagreed with one of the sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act concerning private business. Paul states that he abhors racism. Here's a list of some of the issues concerning the stance of Rand Paul. The list of issues was obtained from Rand Paul's campaign website.
1. Bailouts - Dr. Paul opposes all federal bailouts of private industry. America is the land of opportunity to succeed and to fail. It's time our government starts promoting responsibility.
2. National Defense - Defending our country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.
3. Inflation - And every dollar we print to service our debt, reduces the value of the money in your pocket. Rand will fight to strengthen the value of our dollar so our purchasing power is not destroyed by the sneakiest tax of all: inflation.
4. Taxes and Debt - Lowering taxes gives working men and women the ability to take control of their own lives. It allows business owners to invest in their companies, pay their employees, and create new jobs. Lower taxes encourages spending, saving, and investing--all necessary for a healthy economy.
5. Term Limits - Long term incumbency leads to politicians who seem to care more about what is best for their career than what is best for their country.
6. Privacy and Liberty - The Federal government must return to the constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights. America can prosper, preserve personal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens.
7. Sovereignty - Let's not give up our rights to those who don't share the same respect for our history and our freedoms. The U.S. government must answer only to the Constitution and the citizens protected by it.
8. Veterans - The men and women of our armed services deserve to be treated like the heroes that they are. No other group of federal employees is subject to such unfair treatment as our service men and women; and no other deserves the best.
9. Homeschooling- Rand proposes to restore the parental right to be responsible in educating children. He supports reduced taxes so that parents can allocate more of their own funds to homeschooling, if they so desire.
10. Guns and Politicians - How many politicians claim they are supporters of the 2nd amendment and then vote to restrict handguns? We need to send people to Washington that not only understand the 2nd amendment but the entire Bill of Rights.
11. Energy Innovation - If we leave our energy policy to the special interests in Washington, we will never solve our energy problems. Our energy crisis stems from too much government intervention. The solution requires allowing businesses and ideas to compete.
12. Federal Reserve - Given this incredible power to a semi-private institution, one wonders why we don't hear more about the Fed and its actions from the Congress. As Senator I would make sure that the Federal Reserve is held accountable and restore transparency to our monetary system.
13. Health Care - As a doctor I have had first-hand experience with the vast problems facing health care in America. Like other areas of the economy where the federal government wields its heavy hand, health care is over-regulated and in need of serious market reforms. As Senator, I would ensure that real free market principles are applied to fix this problem.
14. Campaign Finance Reform - Last year, over 15,000 individuals worked for organizations whose sole goal was to rip you off. No, not the mafia or Goldman Sachs, but another distinctly criminal class--Washington lobbyists. In 2008, corporations and unions spent over $3 billion to bribe officials who claim to work for you.
15. Abortion - Dr. Paul believes life begins at conception. He recognizes the most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. Dr. Paul opposes any federal funding for abortion.
16. Illegal Immigration - Dr. Paul does not support amnesty. Those who come her should respect our laws. Dr. Paul supports legal immigration and recognizes that the country has been enriched by those who seek freedom to make a life for themselves.
Monday, October 11, 2010
A Message to Westboro Baptist Church
(USA Today) Supreme Court justices expressed empathy Wednesday for a father whose Marine Corps son was killed in Iraq and whose funeral was protested by fundamentalist pastor Fred Phelps and his followers. "This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. Yet the scope of the justices' questions during the hour-long session revealed the difficulty of the case and the reality that the court's previous rulings on free speech make it hard for individuals to claim they have been harmed by even horrific statements regarding public issues. The justices are struggling over how to avoid a decision that encroaches on valid but sometimes distasteful protest messages.
Wednesday's case arose after Matthew Snyder, a Marine Corps lance corporal, who was killed in Iraq in 2006. Fred Phelps and members of the Westboro Baptist Church--who comb media reports nationwide for news of military funerals--saw that Matthew would be memorialized in Westminister, MD. They protested near the Catholic church with signs that read, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Fag Troops" and "Pope in Hell." The Westboro congregation is made up plainly of Phelp's relatives. They preach that God hates homosexuals and protest what they say is national tolerance for homosexuality, particularly under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Snyder wasn't a homosexual. Westboro members separately posted on the Web a video "epic" about their protests titled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Synder." The video indicated Albert Snyder and his ex-wife had "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil." Snyder sued for damages based on the emotional distress Phelps and his followers caused him and won $5 million in a jury verdict. The trial judge said Snyder was not a "public figure," which diminished the free speech protections for Phelps and his followers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed the verdict, saying the question was not the private or public status of Snyder but rather the "type" of speech at issue. "As utterly distasteful as these signs are," the 4th Circuit said, "they involve matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens." In his appeal last Wednesday, Snyder's lawyer, Sean Sumers, said, "Mr. Snyder simply wanted to bury his son in a private, dignified manner." Sumers said demonstrators didn't go on church grounds and didn't violate any local statutes, yet argued that they canot claim the usual First Amendment protections for free speech because of the "private, targeted nature" of their harsh words against Snyder. Justice Steven Breyer drew out from Sumners that Snyder had not seen the offensive signs until after the funeral on a television report. Summers urged the justices not to rely fully on a 1988 case, Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell, that said public figures and public officials may not recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress unless they prove the statement was deliberately false--a high standard to meet. The 1988 case involved Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell, a nationally known fundamentalist preacher at the time, that suggested he lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. The court said the parody was not intended to assert the truth. Summers said Snyder is not a public figure, as Falwell was.
Justice Kagan picked up on the Falwell precedent, nothing the court had warned against jurors being allowed to impose liability based on their subjective views of "outrageousness." Summers responded that the context of a funeral should matter and separate it from Falwell. Lawyer Margie Phelps represented her father and his Westboro followers. She said their protest met all the rules set by prior court decisions. Phelps repeatedly referred to Westboro as "a little church" intent on preaching its message, which she characterized as, "Nation, hear this little church. If you want them to stop dying, stop sinning." Phelps insisted that any protesters who want to track down military families would be shielded by the First Amendment. She said that only if their activity rose to the level of "stalking, following, importuning" would an individual have a possible claim. She told the justices that Albert Snyder's public comments about his son's death turned him into a public figure--a point that drew skepticism from many of the justices, including Samuel Alito. Alito expressed doubts that bereaved family members could be turned into "public figures" by proding obituary information to a newspaper or expressing pride in a son's service. Justice Kennedy said he wanted help "in finding some line" between speech that merits protection and speech that does not.
Wednesday's case is one of the most closely watched of the term. The courtroom was filled, and spectators spilled into special seats set up in the alcoves. Outside, a handful of Fred Phelps' followers carried signs with messages such as "God Hates You." Groups that are backing Snyder include the Veterans of Foreign Wars and 48 states, stressed the need to protect the privacy of grieving military families. A ruling in the cause of Snyder v. Phelps is likely before next summer when the court recesses.
The first point I desire to make is that God hates sin; not the sinner. Secondly, it's very foolish for Fred Phelps and his followers to be protesting at military funerals of soldiers; period. On top of that, Snyder wasn't homosexual. The Westboro Baptist Church members made fools of themselves going near the church to protest. The military's policy of "don't ask, don't tell" wasn't of Snyder's doing. That was the responsibility of the military brass. Instead of protesting where Snyder's funeral was held, why didn't they go to Washington, D.C. and protest at the Capitol and the Pentagon? That would be the appropriate place for Westboro Baptist to protest. It was wrong for Westboro Baptist to be protesting where Snyder's funeral was held. It was very thoughtless. Christians are to stand up against sin. But it's very insensitive and distasteful to be carrying those signs at a soldier's funeral. Congress is the place to protest. I don't believe Snyder was killed because of the Pentagon's policy of "don't ask, don't tell." I don't believe God was judging Snyder because of the military's policy on homosexuals serving in the military. Don't blame our soldiers for the policies of the military brass. From what little I read about the situation, Westboro Baptist didn't violate the First Amendment when it comes to free speech rights. However, it was very insensitive and distasteful for Westboro to do such a thing. The church's primary mission is to reach the sinners with the gospel; not necessarily to carry signs in hand to protest. The Bible says Christians are to stand against sin. I recognize that. I'm not opposed to churches protesting when there's a cause. Prudence must be exercised if a church believes there's a need to protest. However, there's a time and place to protest. It's foolish and disheartening to be protesting near the funeral of dead soldiers. Their families are suffering grief. They don't need to bear the brunt of somebody's foolishness. The soldiers aren't responsible for the military's policy on homosexuality. If you are a church and you want to protest against the military's policy concerning "don't ask, don't tell", then take your members to Washington to protest. Congress and the Pentagon are the ones responsible for the military's policy on homosexuality. Former president Bill Clinton was the one that pushed to end the military's ban on homosexuals serving in the military in 1993. Clinton and his minions during the 1990's were responsible for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Within the last two years Congress has been pushing to end the "don't, ask, don't tell" ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military. Why doesn't Westboro Baptist Church go to Capitol Hill to protest against Congress's latest attempt to normalize the homosexual lifestyle in the military? I have a message for Westboro Baptist Church or any other church or religious organization: LEAVE THE GRIEVING MILITARY FAMILIES ALONE!
Wednesday's case arose after Matthew Snyder, a Marine Corps lance corporal, who was killed in Iraq in 2006. Fred Phelps and members of the Westboro Baptist Church--who comb media reports nationwide for news of military funerals--saw that Matthew would be memorialized in Westminister, MD. They protested near the Catholic church with signs that read, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Fag Troops" and "Pope in Hell." The Westboro congregation is made up plainly of Phelp's relatives. They preach that God hates homosexuals and protest what they say is national tolerance for homosexuality, particularly under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Snyder wasn't a homosexual. Westboro members separately posted on the Web a video "epic" about their protests titled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Synder." The video indicated Albert Snyder and his ex-wife had "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil." Snyder sued for damages based on the emotional distress Phelps and his followers caused him and won $5 million in a jury verdict. The trial judge said Snyder was not a "public figure," which diminished the free speech protections for Phelps and his followers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed the verdict, saying the question was not the private or public status of Snyder but rather the "type" of speech at issue. "As utterly distasteful as these signs are," the 4th Circuit said, "they involve matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens." In his appeal last Wednesday, Snyder's lawyer, Sean Sumers, said, "Mr. Snyder simply wanted to bury his son in a private, dignified manner." Sumers said demonstrators didn't go on church grounds and didn't violate any local statutes, yet argued that they canot claim the usual First Amendment protections for free speech because of the "private, targeted nature" of their harsh words against Snyder. Justice Steven Breyer drew out from Sumners that Snyder had not seen the offensive signs until after the funeral on a television report. Summers urged the justices not to rely fully on a 1988 case, Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell, that said public figures and public officials may not recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress unless they prove the statement was deliberately false--a high standard to meet. The 1988 case involved Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell, a nationally known fundamentalist preacher at the time, that suggested he lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. The court said the parody was not intended to assert the truth. Summers said Snyder is not a public figure, as Falwell was.
Justice Kagan picked up on the Falwell precedent, nothing the court had warned against jurors being allowed to impose liability based on their subjective views of "outrageousness." Summers responded that the context of a funeral should matter and separate it from Falwell. Lawyer Margie Phelps represented her father and his Westboro followers. She said their protest met all the rules set by prior court decisions. Phelps repeatedly referred to Westboro as "a little church" intent on preaching its message, which she characterized as, "Nation, hear this little church. If you want them to stop dying, stop sinning." Phelps insisted that any protesters who want to track down military families would be shielded by the First Amendment. She said that only if their activity rose to the level of "stalking, following, importuning" would an individual have a possible claim. She told the justices that Albert Snyder's public comments about his son's death turned him into a public figure--a point that drew skepticism from many of the justices, including Samuel Alito. Alito expressed doubts that bereaved family members could be turned into "public figures" by proding obituary information to a newspaper or expressing pride in a son's service. Justice Kennedy said he wanted help "in finding some line" between speech that merits protection and speech that does not.
Wednesday's case is one of the most closely watched of the term. The courtroom was filled, and spectators spilled into special seats set up in the alcoves. Outside, a handful of Fred Phelps' followers carried signs with messages such as "God Hates You." Groups that are backing Snyder include the Veterans of Foreign Wars and 48 states, stressed the need to protect the privacy of grieving military families. A ruling in the cause of Snyder v. Phelps is likely before next summer when the court recesses.
The first point I desire to make is that God hates sin; not the sinner. Secondly, it's very foolish for Fred Phelps and his followers to be protesting at military funerals of soldiers; period. On top of that, Snyder wasn't homosexual. The Westboro Baptist Church members made fools of themselves going near the church to protest. The military's policy of "don't ask, don't tell" wasn't of Snyder's doing. That was the responsibility of the military brass. Instead of protesting where Snyder's funeral was held, why didn't they go to Washington, D.C. and protest at the Capitol and the Pentagon? That would be the appropriate place for Westboro Baptist to protest. It was wrong for Westboro Baptist to be protesting where Snyder's funeral was held. It was very thoughtless. Christians are to stand up against sin. But it's very insensitive and distasteful to be carrying those signs at a soldier's funeral. Congress is the place to protest. I don't believe Snyder was killed because of the Pentagon's policy of "don't ask, don't tell." I don't believe God was judging Snyder because of the military's policy on homosexuals serving in the military. Don't blame our soldiers for the policies of the military brass. From what little I read about the situation, Westboro Baptist didn't violate the First Amendment when it comes to free speech rights. However, it was very insensitive and distasteful for Westboro to do such a thing. The church's primary mission is to reach the sinners with the gospel; not necessarily to carry signs in hand to protest. The Bible says Christians are to stand against sin. I recognize that. I'm not opposed to churches protesting when there's a cause. Prudence must be exercised if a church believes there's a need to protest. However, there's a time and place to protest. It's foolish and disheartening to be protesting near the funeral of dead soldiers. Their families are suffering grief. They don't need to bear the brunt of somebody's foolishness. The soldiers aren't responsible for the military's policy on homosexuality. If you are a church and you want to protest against the military's policy concerning "don't ask, don't tell", then take your members to Washington to protest. Congress and the Pentagon are the ones responsible for the military's policy on homosexuality. Former president Bill Clinton was the one that pushed to end the military's ban on homosexuals serving in the military in 1993. Clinton and his minions during the 1990's were responsible for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Within the last two years Congress has been pushing to end the "don't, ask, don't tell" ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military. Why doesn't Westboro Baptist Church go to Capitol Hill to protest against Congress's latest attempt to normalize the homosexual lifestyle in the military? I have a message for Westboro Baptist Church or any other church or religious organization: LEAVE THE GRIEVING MILITARY FAMILIES ALONE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)