A Letter to the Govenator

I found this at Michelle Malkins blog here:

Dear Govenor Schwarzenegger:

I respectfully request your immediate condemnation of the dangerous and thuggery actions of the angry prop 8 activists who are using intimidating and corruptive tactics against the citizens of California, your constituents. By failing to speak out, you are complicit and malfeasant. These activists are threatening businesses with boycotts at a critical time in this States disastrous economy, naming individuals thus making them vulnerable to retaliation and physical harm, targeting places of worship, and disrupting the peace.

It was shameful enough that you encouraged the protesters to defy the majority will of California voters. You proved yourself a lame-duck politician by reversing your principals on the issue of gay marriage (not to mention taxation). For this voter, you have lost all credibility.
However, to stand by silently, while the community is being subjected to the minority unlawful and menacing behavior being inflicted on cities statewide is reprehensible as a governor.

I sincerely hope you make a strong statement condemning these demonstrations very, very soon.

The 40 names that want to kill Prop 8

Senate President Pro tempore Don Perata
Senate President Pro-Tempore Elect Darrell Steinberg
Speaker Karen Bass
Former Speaker Fabian Nunez
Senators Ron Calderon, Gilbert Cedillo, Ellen Corbett, Christine Kehoe, Sheila Kuehl, Alan S. Lowenthal, Carole Migdon, Alex Padilla, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Gloria Romero and Patirca Wiggins.

Contact The CA Senators here.



Assembly members Jim Beall Jr., Patty Berg, Julia Brownley, Anna M. Caballero, Charles Calderon, Joe Coto, Kevin de Leon, Mark De Saulnier, Mike Eng, Noreen Evans, Mike Fever, Felipe Fuentes, Loni Hanacock, Mary Hayashi, Edward P. Hernandez, Jared Huffman, Dave Jones, Betty Karnette, Paul Kerkorian, John Laird, Makr Leno, Lloyd E. Levine, Sally J Lieber, Fiona Ma, Anthony J. Portantino, Lori Saldana, Jose Solurio, Sandre R. Swanson and Lois Wolk.

Contatct the CA Assembly members here.

Happy Veteran's day

Support a disabled Veteran who needs a computer on the Project Valour IT project run by Solder's Angels here. Of course I joined the Navy team!

LDS Statement on Prop 8

From LA Independent here.

The Mormon church in Salt Lake City issued a statement denying that the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage has anything to do with bigotry.

“It is important to understand that this issue for the church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman,’’ according to the statement. “Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the church were and are simply wrong. The church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.

“Even more, the church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.’’

Rick Warren's statement on Prop 8

On Oct. 24, Warren endorsed Prop. 8. In an e-mail to his followers, he said, “For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion — not just Christianity — has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population.’’

from LA Independent here.

Cardinal Mahony's statement on Prop 8

From LA Independent here:

Mahony said support for Prop. 8 had nothing to do with discrimination against gays.

“Proposition 8 is not against any group in our society,’’ he said. “Its sole focus is on preserving God’s plan for people living upon this earth throughout time. The Catholic Church understands that there are people who choose to live together in relationships other than traditional marriage. All of their spiritual, pastoral and civil rights should be respected, together with their membership in the church.’’

I can't see where the "H8TE" comes from?

More Thugery on "H8TE"

From here at Family Research Council.

There is an irony in the taunts thrown at Christians that they are "intolerant" and "bigoted." Throughout history it has been Christians and others of strong religious faith who have spoken out and fought for those who are truly oppressed. Most notably the abolition of slavery was led by Christians like William Wilberforce in England and Thomas Jefferson Randolph, grandson of Thomas Jefferson, in the United States. And of course the civil rights movement of the 1960's found its leader in the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

However it is Christians and African-Americans who are being attacked, alongside Mormons, because of the leadership and support they gave the successful push for a marriage amendment in California's state constitution.

A democratic process

What the "No on Prop 8" people did not do was to go though the process of changing the laws like the "Yes on Prop 8" people did.
From Rhinotimes here:

In order to make such a radical change in human behavior and custom, the proponents of gay marriage should have followed constitutional, democratic process and persuaded people to support it until a majority was achieved.

That's what the US Constitution and every state constitution require. And that has not happened anywhere in the US.

What was the public emergency that made it so the New Puritans could not wait to persuade people to vote for what they wanted? The only emergency was that they knew that they could not do it. They knew democracy would not choose what they wanted.

Therefore small groups of dictators have simply taken it upon themselves to deny universal human practice and remake the law as they saw fit, without waiting for democratic process.

Their pretexts are laughable, their authority nonexistent. No constitution declares that any court has such a right.

So why is anyone obeying them? Because, in support of their illegal action, the courts can issue writs removing the power of any other state official to resist them. There is no institution that even knows how to begin resisting the illegal usurpation of power by the judicial branch.

No branch of government was ever intended to have the power to dictate new law without other branches of government having a chance to stop them or at least slow them down.

In essence, we have suffered a coup and lost our democracy. A minority is dictating new law against the will of the majority, and will spread it by force throughout the country by using the full-faith-and-credit clause.

I don't hate gays

There is an ignorance of us "Yes on 8" supporters, we do not hate gays at all. Most of us are church going people (Christan, Catholic, Mormons and Jewish). We love our neighbors like God wants us too. Why would we use hate to take someones civil rights away?
The issue that is forgotten is this battle of "gay marriage" is what children want. Most kids that I talk to including my own want One Mother and One Father to raise them. The security of knowing that a nurturing Mother and a protective Father is very comforting to children.

I'll list the information from leading scholars from Family Research Council here:

A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.

This statement from Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:

If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.

What better way to raise a kid in a traditional marriage. You have lower suicide rates, lower crime, and lower drug abuse when a child grows up in a monogamous relationship of a Mother and a Father.

During the election, my kids were very worried that if it did not pass we would not have families anymore. I think they are right. And we don't hate gays at all. Christians believe in helping everyone. We might not agree with the gay life style, but we have compassion for them.

Its just we disagree on what Marriage is. The civil rights of an individual is not taken away. Gays are allowed to marry but to one of the opposite sex!

Obama's Security Forces

I don't believe my eyes but does it look like Obama's Security forces logo look similar to the SS logo of Nazi Germany?
From CafePress here.

Pelosi says we got it wrong on Prop 8

Ok Nancy, you are right people did get it wrong. They thought you had to vote "No" to gay marriage to amend the constitution. Some campaign workers told me they had to inform them that you had to vote "Yes" to ban gay marriage and amend the constitution. However, Nancy dear your beloved Catholic Church opposes Gay Marriage and for that matter abortion. From SF Gate here:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed deep disappointment on Friday that California voters approved Prop. 8, the measure banning same-sex marriage, and defended her ally, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, against critics who say his actions contributed to its passage.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Chronicle, Pelosi said she believes some voters might not have fully understood the initiative, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The measure was approved 52 to 48 percent.

"Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," the San Francisco Democrat said. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."

Yes, we amended the constitution so children will grow up to One Dad and One Mom. We voted so our kids have the right to a traditional family the way God intended! And Nancy dear, are such a hypocrite.

Going on Strike--I'll join it willing!

I am a fan Orson Scott Card's Science Fiction writings and read "Enders War." He is a supporter of Traditional Marriage and upholding our moral values. From Rhino Times here:

In essence, we have suffered a coup and lost our democracy. A minority is dictating new law against the will of the majority, and will spread it by force throughout the country by using the full-faith-and-credit clause.

This should terrify the proponents of gay marriage, because a process that right now seems to work for them could just as easily, and just as unfairly, be used against them. But they think only in the short term. They don't mind leaving democracy in a shambles and making the Constitution a joke, as long as they get their way on this issue.

As much as I think gay marriage is a terrible idea, grounded on neither science nor common sense, we should be even more concerned that our republic is in the process of ceasing to be in any meaningful sense a democracy.

As a parent, we have to take back the schools and resist the indoctrination of our youth to the "gay" liberal values. The whole point of the definition of marriage is not the civil rights issues, but to keep families together! God created Man. And God's plan to keep mankind going is though procreation. And it is a biological fact the only way to create a family is though One Man and One Woman. That is that. It is not a civil rights issue at all. Domestic partnerships are valid. Please keep Marriage between a Man and a Woman. Our kids want it. They want a Mom and a Dad to raise them in a family, intact. Simple as that.

Conveniently, that portion of American society that supports the written Constitution, and that denies the power of government to redefine marriage, also provides the overwhelming majority of volunteers for the American military and for law enforcement and public safety.

What if Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews“ and people of any religion who believe in democracy and the Constitution“ all retired from the military or police, or refused to enlist or reenlist as long as they are going to be used to enforce the "laws" made up by dictators?

What if we ceased to put any marriage announcements, obituaries or want ads in papers that run "gay marriage" announcements, or even stopped buying those papers at all? The "mainstream" media would quickly discover that they aren't so mainstream after all.

What if we all kept our children at home and refused to allow them to go to propagandizing schools?

How long could our government function if we withdrew all our support?

I know a lot of people of faith who will resist. And we will succeed. Even if we need to take back our country by force. The constitution will be upheld and our country will be saved. I have faith in our Founders.

Obama's Cabinet

Obama apologizes to Nancy

I blew a gasket today what I heard at Obama's press conference today. How dare he say bad things about Nancy Regan holding seances! (She was into astrology, not brining back sprits!) It was Mary Todd Linclon who had a seance in the Whitehouse. Obama's joke went bad. I think he should stay away from telling jokes.
From Politico here.

More on "frivolus suits" on Prop 8

My option on the "No on 8" crowd why can't you get an initiative to amend the marriage definition on the California ballot to support "Gay Marriage?" And let the citizens of California vote on the issue. The definition of Marriage was voted on 8 years ago and passed. Four activist Judges made up a law to make Prop. 22 unconstitutional! Judge Rose Bird did the same thing by overturning the death penalty. California citizens voted for the Death Penalty into the constitution and over turned Judge Bird's decision. The government is for the people to decide not the courts. So if you so want to change a law, do it at the ballot box, not the court.

From Catholic News Agency here.

Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the pro-Proposition 8 campaign, criticized the legal actions.

“If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," Schubert said to the Los Angeles Times. “But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."

More trouble from ACLU

Here is a statement from Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8.

I read it this morning and it brought back memories of Judge Rose Bird and Govenator moonbeam's days.

The right to amend California's Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People's decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People's authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.



It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same "constitutional revision" claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, "...only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU's "revision" claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) - P.3d -, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

The Obama post racial promise

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years. I believe, for example, that Colin Powell might well have been elected president in 1996 had he run against a then rather weak Bill Clinton. It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don't think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

From LAT here.

I didn't vote for Obama for his race. I voted against his politics (taxes, redistribution of wealth and health care, etc) and his radical associations to Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. I voted on the issues, not the race of the candidate. The thing I did not like about Obama is he would say things about "typical white people" and how they cling to guns and religion. I say that we like our constitutional rights and freely worship the GOD of our choice. That's all. Many Americans of all races want freedom to choose how they live their life.

What the GOP needs to do

From Next Right here:

The first opportunity to leverage these cyclical advantages will come in the 2010 midterm elections. Despite some recent exceptions, the party of the president usually suffers a net decline of seats in Congress during off-year elections. This provides a realistic opportunity for the Republican Party to regain control of the House and reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate in the very near term.

This national cyclical advantage should be supplemented in four ways:

1. Aggressive candidate recruitment: The pool of quality potential congressional candidates for the GOP should be quite large. In particular, the drawdown of the American military presence in Iraq will make a pool of new veterans—largely inclined to conservative politics—available.
2. Web-based fundraising through bundling PACs: Traditional bundling PACs accept and forward paper checks to listed candidates. A smart web-based bundling PAC could allow donors to initiate a single transaction on the PAC’s website that would be forwarded electronically to list candidates per the donors' instructions.
3. A young ground game: Colleges and universities are enormous pools of high quality, low cost, and eager political talent. Creative efforts to transport, house, and support college students as canvassers and phone-bank workers for targeted congressional races could help overcome the chronic lack of labor that make sophisticated GOTV efforts difficult for many congressional campaigns.
4. A new “Contract with America”: The evidence suggests that issues play a limited role in campaign outcomes. But, the perception of the role of issues in an election outcome can be very important for developing claims of a mandate to enact policy changes after the election. Within some limits, a strong policy platform is unlikely to either help or hurt a national campaign for Congress. But, it can help provide a launching pad to actually enact conservative policies, particularly over the objections of a sitting President Obama. Some potential items might include:
1. A balanced budget amendment that includes requirements for reasonable debt payment timetables
2. Income tax simplification to make one-page filing a reality and increase transparency
3. Income tax reduction on the first $10,000 of income from interest and dividends to encourage savings and investment
4. Healthcare reforms to allow doctors to charge on a sliding scale without risking reduced payments from insurance companies.
5. Strong web use privacy laws limiting the type of information that websites can collect and store about users

Like Obama supporters who are all Internet based and are ordered to attack any opposition. We need to build up an "Army of Davids" i.e. Glenn Reynolds and counter attacks. I think we should support local Young Republican groups at Colleges and Universities. And teach our kids what is conservatism. A good set of books to buy for them is the 2 book series of "America The Last Best Hope" by William J Bennett. He has been going to schools and promoting his books. Americas youth must be taught our own history "warts and all." We need to show our kids that its ok in loving America the way it is. We don't need to transform it, we need to educate our youth on its history, and it's Freedoms. It is important to keep America free.

Vote for Lando or Palpatine?

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

The No on Prop 8 add that is totally wrong!

I got an e-mail waring about LDS and the lies the No on Prop 8 people are saying. The Catholic Church, the Mormons, Southern Baptists, other evangelicals are supporting Yes on 8. It is hurtful to me that the No on 8 people are lying about LDS and the Mormons would never go into anyone home and violate them. Never! Not true all all!



Shameful!

HT to Hedgehog blog here.