The following link is to the 181 page treaty that could be signed in December.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
What an ........ words fail me
Conservative vs Liberal
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced (unless it is a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor, and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended.”
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced (unless it is a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor, and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended.”
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Not in my America
<-- live feed can't lie!
Can the unthinkable actually be happening? Is the Obama Administration employing Stalinist tactics of thuggery and intimidation against average Americans who oppose ObamaCare? Consider the following incident. When Barack Hussein Obama rolled into town for his - by invitation only - town hall meeting in Bristol Virginia, average citizens, desperate to make their voices heard, gathered on sidewalks and curbs along the route of Obama's motorcade holding homemade signs opposing ObamaCare. One of the peaceful citizen protesters sent this shocking eyewitness report to the Internet blog, TheGatewayPundit.com: "There were several vehicles following the limo that contained the secret service. The vehicles had all the windows rolled down, and back hatches open on the SUVs with the men holding their, I assume assault rifles, machine guns, drawn on everyone lining the streets. Needless to say, it took my breath away at the sight of them, and made my friends and I dizzy with fear.... I turned on a local talk radio program as we were leaving and all the calls were about witnessing the guns being pointed at them." Of course, we don't want to jump to any conclusions. There might have been a legitimate reason behind what appears to otherwise be an excessive show of force... we simply don't know. But even if the intent of the Obama Administration was not to oppressively stifle 1st Amendment rights... the message that was left is nonetheless chilling. Rosslyn Smith with AmericanThinker.com put the incident in perspective: "Whatever it was, the message was poison. Only handpicked supporters were going to get into the carefully orchestrated media event at a Kroger deli that had Obama jetting in and out of the community. That all those who were left to peacefully demonstrate outside had been held at gunpoint is not going to be forgotten anytime soon by those in attendance." Thuggery? ... Veiled threat? ... Paranoia on the part of Team Obama? ... Legitimate and necessary safeguards to protect the life of the President against a real threat? We may never know. But there is one thing that we do know. Proponents of ObamaCare are showing a detestable contempt for the American people. They don't want to hear from you. They don't want to hear what you have to say when it comes to the government takeover of the health care system and they don't care what you have to say. Essentially, they are trying to tune you out.
Can the unthinkable actually be happening? Is the Obama Administration employing Stalinist tactics of thuggery and intimidation against average Americans who oppose ObamaCare? Consider the following incident. When Barack Hussein Obama rolled into town for his - by invitation only - town hall meeting in Bristol Virginia, average citizens, desperate to make their voices heard, gathered on sidewalks and curbs along the route of Obama's motorcade holding homemade signs opposing ObamaCare. One of the peaceful citizen protesters sent this shocking eyewitness report to the Internet blog, TheGatewayPundit.com: "There were several vehicles following the limo that contained the secret service. The vehicles had all the windows rolled down, and back hatches open on the SUVs with the men holding their, I assume assault rifles, machine guns, drawn on everyone lining the streets. Needless to say, it took my breath away at the sight of them, and made my friends and I dizzy with fear.... I turned on a local talk radio program as we were leaving and all the calls were about witnessing the guns being pointed at them." Of course, we don't want to jump to any conclusions. There might have been a legitimate reason behind what appears to otherwise be an excessive show of force... we simply don't know. But even if the intent of the Obama Administration was not to oppressively stifle 1st Amendment rights... the message that was left is nonetheless chilling. Rosslyn Smith with AmericanThinker.com put the incident in perspective: "Whatever it was, the message was poison. Only handpicked supporters were going to get into the carefully orchestrated media event at a Kroger deli that had Obama jetting in and out of the community. That all those who were left to peacefully demonstrate outside had been held at gunpoint is not going to be forgotten anytime soon by those in attendance." Thuggery? ... Veiled threat? ... Paranoia on the part of Team Obama? ... Legitimate and necessary safeguards to protect the life of the President against a real threat? We may never know. But there is one thing that we do know. Proponents of ObamaCare are showing a detestable contempt for the American people. They don't want to hear from you. They don't want to hear what you have to say when it comes to the government takeover of the health care system and they don't care what you have to say. Essentially, they are trying to tune you out.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
BO Birth Certificate
The Associated Press is wrong and Lou Dobbs is right.
This past weekend, the AP published a story entitled "CNN's Dobbs Under Fire for Hosting 'Birthers'".
The AP began their highly critical story on Dobbs: "He's become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network's 'no bias' brand."
And what is Dobbs' "crime?" He has said on air that Obama should release his birth certificate and has had on his show guests who suggested Obama was born outside the U.S.
Dobbs does not believe Obama was born outside the U.S., nor does Newsmax. The evidence indicates he was born in Hawaii. But the indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. The AP implies that Obama has not released a "long version of his birth certificate." But Obama has never released either a long or short version of his birth certificate.
Instead, Obama's campaign last year released only his Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate. Even state residents born outside the U.S. can get one.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.
Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure.
This information is not provided on the Certification of Live Birth.
As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.
Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.
Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life.
Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.
Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:
• Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.
• Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
• Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.
• Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.
• Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.
• Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.
• Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.
• During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.
Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Editor's Notes:
See Lou Dobbs' video on Obama's birth certificate - Click Here Now.
Dobbs fires back at critics of his show on Obama's birth certificate - Click Here Now.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
This past weekend, the AP published a story entitled "CNN's Dobbs Under Fire for Hosting 'Birthers'".
The AP began their highly critical story on Dobbs: "He's become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network's 'no bias' brand."
And what is Dobbs' "crime?" He has said on air that Obama should release his birth certificate and has had on his show guests who suggested Obama was born outside the U.S.
Dobbs does not believe Obama was born outside the U.S., nor does Newsmax. The evidence indicates he was born in Hawaii. But the indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there. The AP implies that Obama has not released a "long version of his birth certificate." But Obama has never released either a long or short version of his birth certificate.
Instead, Obama's campaign last year released only his Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate. Even state residents born outside the U.S. can get one.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.
Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure.
This information is not provided on the Certification of Live Birth.
As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.
Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.
Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life.
Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would not release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.
Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:
• Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.
• Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
• Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.
• Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.
• Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.
• Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.
• Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.
• During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.
Ironically, Obama accused the Bush White House of being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history," and chided then-Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Editor's Notes:
See Lou Dobbs' video on Obama's birth certificate - Click Here Now.
Dobbs fires back at critics of his show on Obama's birth certificate - Click Here Now.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Health Care Bill
WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leaders, pledging to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, are offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy.
"We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said Tuesday. "We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system."
In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted floor debate to begin a week from Monday. With the Senate Finance Committee still struggling to reach consensus, that timetable could slip. Even so, it underscored a renewed sense of urgency. Obama himself was driving the action, going off-script to push the issue during a speech in Michigan and scheduling a Rose Garden news conference for Wednesday to make more comments on the topic.
"There's going to be a major debate over the next three weeks," Obama said in Warren, Mich., deviating from his prepared text on new spending for community colleges. "And don't be fooled by folks trying to scare you saying we can't change the health care system. We have no choice but to change the health care system because right now it's broken for too many Americans."
All involved were mindful of the dwindling days before Congress leaves town. Obama wants legislation through the House and Senate before then to slow rising costs and extend coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans.
Under the House Democrats' plan, the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations.
Three House committees will begin voting on the bill Thursday. Changes in the legislation are likely to satisfy a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who are withholding support. The 1,000-page bill is unlikely to attract any Republican backing, and business groups and the insurance industry immediately assailed it as a job-killer.
The business groups also warned that the U.S. health care system could be damaged by adding a government-run insurance plan and a federal council that would make some decisions on benefits, as called for in the legislation. Thirty-one organizations signed the letter, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable representing top corporate CEOs and the National Retail Federation.
The House bill seemed unlikely to win broad backing in the Senate, where the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was expected to finish its version of the legislation Wednesday in what was looking to be a party-line vote.
The Finance Committee was striving to produce a bill by the end of the week, though the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., acknowledged it would be a challenge to meet Obama's timeline.
"I think it's a lift but one we could accomplish, one we could handle," Baucus said. "I'm not going to guarantee that it's going to happen."
"We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said Tuesday. "We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system."
In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted floor debate to begin a week from Monday. With the Senate Finance Committee still struggling to reach consensus, that timetable could slip. Even so, it underscored a renewed sense of urgency. Obama himself was driving the action, going off-script to push the issue during a speech in Michigan and scheduling a Rose Garden news conference for Wednesday to make more comments on the topic.
"There's going to be a major debate over the next three weeks," Obama said in Warren, Mich., deviating from his prepared text on new spending for community colleges. "And don't be fooled by folks trying to scare you saying we can't change the health care system. We have no choice but to change the health care system because right now it's broken for too many Americans."
All involved were mindful of the dwindling days before Congress leaves town. Obama wants legislation through the House and Senate before then to slow rising costs and extend coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans.
Under the House Democrats' plan, the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations.
Three House committees will begin voting on the bill Thursday. Changes in the legislation are likely to satisfy a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who are withholding support. The 1,000-page bill is unlikely to attract any Republican backing, and business groups and the insurance industry immediately assailed it as a job-killer.
The business groups also warned that the U.S. health care system could be damaged by adding a government-run insurance plan and a federal council that would make some decisions on benefits, as called for in the legislation. Thirty-one organizations signed the letter, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable representing top corporate CEOs and the National Retail Federation.
The House bill seemed unlikely to win broad backing in the Senate, where the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was expected to finish its version of the legislation Wednesday in what was looking to be a party-line vote.
The Finance Committee was striving to produce a bill by the end of the week, though the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., acknowledged it would be a challenge to meet Obama's timeline.
"I think it's a lift but one we could accomplish, one we could handle," Baucus said. "I'm not going to guarantee that it's going to happen."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Could 2010 Census Include Make-Believe People?
Left-leaning groups want to include millions of pretend people in the real-life 2010 Census. It almost happened in 2000. This time, they might get their way. The administration claims it has “no plans” to use statistical sampling to augment the actual headcount next year by adding millions of fictitious people.
Statistical sampling creates profiles of make-believe people, assigning them an address, a gender, race, age, income, and other characteristics. And it counts them, just as though they were counted by a census worker. The Left argues that minorities and illegal immigrants are usually undercounted. They seek statistical “adjustments” to add made-up people, using assumptions and formulas that can be both factually wrong and politically manipulated.
Obama’s choice as new Census Director is University of Michigan Professor Robert Groves, who the Senate may confirm with a vote as early as this evening. Groves is a champion of statistical sampling. As reported by the Associated Press, “When he was the bureau’s associate director, Groves recommended that the 1990 census be statistically adjusted to make up for an undercount of roughly 5 million people, many of them minorities in dense urban areas who tend to vote for Democrats.”
Obama’s choice as new Census Director is University of Michigan Professor Robert Groves, who the Senate may confirm with a vote as early as this evening. Groves is a champion of statistical sampling. As reported by the Associated Press, “When he was the bureau’s associate director, Groves recommended that the 1990 census be statistically adjusted to make up for an undercount of roughly 5 million people, many of them minorities in dense urban areas who tend to vote for Democrats.”
Conservatives worry that, having learned from the failure of Bill Clinton’s high-profile push for census sampling, the administration has adopted a stealth approach by claiming not to support sampling while hiring a Census Bureau Director who does.
With its impact on dozens of Congressional seats, the Electoral College, and the allocation of billions in taxpayer dollars, the possibility of sampling demands attention. The potential for political tampering and manipulation is too huge to ignore, whether those in power have pure intentions or Machiavellian intent.
As Joseph Stalin said, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” And so could those who count the voters.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
STOP the 'Pedophile Protection Act'
Senate Democrats are Pushing for Vote on the 'Pedophile Protection Act' -- Select Below to Tell the Senate to REJECT So-Called 'Hate Crimes' Bill:https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_hatecrimes/?a=2700
ALERT: There's a dangerous bill sitting in the U.S. Senate right now -- one that liberal Senators want to sneak through without anyone stopping them. If this bill that the U.S. House passed isn't STOPPED in the Senate, here's what can happen, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX):
If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, [and] she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation… You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them -- they've committed a misdemeanor; you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong. Rep. Gohmert is right: IT IS SO WRONG! But now, the Senate is ready to PASS that bill and send it to Barack Obama to sign into law -- which means we have to FIGHT HARD TO STOP IT!
TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT THE "PEDOPHILE PROTECTION ACT":SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!
Whatever happened to "equal justice for all"? As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) stated, "Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. This is the real injustice." Look, we all know that every year, many violent crimes are committed out of hate. But just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by something other than hate – whether it's greed, jealously, desperation, or revenge, to name a few. A person's motivation for committing a violent crime is usually complex, and often we can only guess as to why he or she did it. Every violent crime is deplorable -- regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating not only to the victim and their family, but also to the larger community whose sense of safety has been violated. That's why ALL violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. But this bill goes MUCH, MUCH FARTHER that simply prosecuting violent crime -- it creates a new "protected class" of people that would now be protected under "hate crimes" definitions. That means that this bill will protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or "Paraphilias" listed by the American Psychiatric Association! This would provide a HUGE MASS of "sacred cows" in our society, which includes pedophiles who would be given elevated protection -- giving "the offender" an additional decade behind bars. And that "offender" could be YOU! If a pedophile tries to molest your daughter, or your nephew, or your granddaughter, or some little boy in the street -- if you step in and beat the pedophile to get him away, YOU could spend ten years in prison for your "offense"! I am NOT exaggerating this. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), who supports this horrendous bill, admitted that the bill would protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy listed by the APA.
Here's what Hastings said on the floor of the U.S. House itself:
This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these "Philias" and fetishes and "isms" that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule. Apparently, supporters of this bill have no problem with sexual deviants, including pedophiles, getting a higher level of protection against you and me! Don't think that some people in the House didn't try to stand up against the Thought Police crowd. The House version of the so-called "hate crimes" bill was adopted on a 249-175 vote, but not before several amendments were proposed by Republicans trying to mitigate the impact of the draconian law. For example, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) offered an amendment that was very simple: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia." The majority Democrats refused to accept that amendment -- or any OTHER amendment along the same lines! Far-leftist Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have introduced the bill into the Senate. However, because of the OUTRAGE they're hearing from their constituents -- YOU AND ME -- they're going to try to sneak in through by adding it as an amendment to a completely different bill... and Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid has reaffirmed his plans to have the Senate vote on this dangerous bill before Congress' August recess! And that means WE have to take action NOW!
TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT THE "PEDOPHILE PROTECTION ACT":SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!In George Orwell's classic book, "1984," the State was constantly cracking down on what they called "thought crimes" -- that is, you didn't face prosecution just because of what you DID -- but also because of what you THOUGHT. That is EXACTLY what this so-called "hate crimes" bill will do -- it blurs the lines between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. If we go down this road, where does it end? With speech monitors and thought police? As Janet Porter of Faith2Action noted, "Pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law. Speaking out against the homosexual agenda could also make you a felon if you are said to influence someone who pushes away that unwelcome advance. And pedophiles and other sexual deviants would enjoy an elevated level of protection while children, seniors, veterans, and churches would not." Rep. Gohmert warned that this law would be used against pastors -- or anyone else -- who speaks against homosexuality or other alternative sexual lifestyle choices, saying that it provides that anyone who through speech "induces" commission of a violent hate crime "will be tried as a principal" alongside the active offender. Critics say that would allow for prosecutions against pastors who preach on biblical opposition to homosexuality if someone who hears such a message later is accused of any crime. A pastor's sermon could be considered "hate speech" under this legislation if it's heard by someone who then commits an act of violence against someone based on "sexual orientation." The pastor could be prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit a hate crime". Don't think it could happen? It already is. Similar state laws have already resulted in persecution for Christians. In Philadelphia several years ago, a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival. In Canada, which already has severely restrictive "hate crime" laws, government "Human Rights Commissions" review any "suspect" speech or actions that might be perceived as being against any of their "protected classes." So today, Canada has a major national magazine, a federal political party leader and a registered political party, a major Catholic newspaper (Catholic Insight) and an internationally renowned journalist (Mark Steyn) -- all of whom are being investigated by appointed "hate speech therapists" from the commissions. Even Focus on the Family, one of the largest Christian publishing and broadcasting organizations in the nation, has admitted that it has been reviewing, and if necessary editing, its broadcasts to avoid complications with Canadian "hate crimes" laws. THIS IS WHAT WE FACE IN OUR FUTURE -- unless we take action NOW to stop this bill in the Senate! That's why we've set up our website to enable you to send "Blast Faxes" to every single U.S. Senator AT ONCE, demanding that they REJECT this pro-pedophile "thought crimes" bill -- the "Pedophile Protection Act"! For about what it would cost you in time and telephone charges, you can send Blast Faxes to Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- EVERYONE in the U.S. Senate, DEMANDING that they say NO to so-called "hate crimes" legislation!
TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT THE "PEDOPHILE PROTECTION ACT":SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!
Please, take action right away to STOP this bill dead in its tracks!
Sincerely,
William Greene,
President
RightMarch.com
PACP.S. FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined over the last ten years. In 2007, of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the U.S., only NINE were determined to be motivated by bias. This is a so-called "solution" to a problem that doesn't even exist!!! And what does President Barack Obama say? "I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance." THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS -- and it MUST be stopped! Send your faxes right away to make sure these Senators get a STRONG message, to STOP this so-called "hate crimes" legislation NOW -- Thank you!
ALERT: There's a dangerous bill sitting in the U.S. Senate right now -- one that liberal Senators want to sneak through without anyone stopping them. If this bill that the U.S. House passed isn't STOPPED in the Senate, here's what can happen, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX):
If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, [and] she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation… You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them -- they've committed a misdemeanor; you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong. Rep. Gohmert is right: IT IS SO WRONG! But now, the Senate is ready to PASS that bill and send it to Barack Obama to sign into law -- which means we have to FIGHT HARD TO STOP IT!
TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT THE "PEDOPHILE PROTECTION ACT":SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!
Whatever happened to "equal justice for all"? As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) stated, "Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. This is the real injustice." Look, we all know that every year, many violent crimes are committed out of hate. But just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by something other than hate – whether it's greed, jealously, desperation, or revenge, to name a few. A person's motivation for committing a violent crime is usually complex, and often we can only guess as to why he or she did it. Every violent crime is deplorable -- regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating not only to the victim and their family, but also to the larger community whose sense of safety has been violated. That's why ALL violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. But this bill goes MUCH, MUCH FARTHER that simply prosecuting violent crime -- it creates a new "protected class" of people that would now be protected under "hate crimes" definitions. That means that this bill will protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or "Paraphilias" listed by the American Psychiatric Association! This would provide a HUGE MASS of "sacred cows" in our society, which includes pedophiles who would be given elevated protection -- giving "the offender" an additional decade behind bars. And that "offender" could be YOU! If a pedophile tries to molest your daughter, or your nephew, or your granddaughter, or some little boy in the street -- if you step in and beat the pedophile to get him away, YOU could spend ten years in prison for your "offense"! I am NOT exaggerating this. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), who supports this horrendous bill, admitted that the bill would protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy listed by the APA.
Here's what Hastings said on the floor of the U.S. House itself:
This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these "Philias" and fetishes and "isms" that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule. Apparently, supporters of this bill have no problem with sexual deviants, including pedophiles, getting a higher level of protection against you and me! Don't think that some people in the House didn't try to stand up against the Thought Police crowd. The House version of the so-called "hate crimes" bill was adopted on a 249-175 vote, but not before several amendments were proposed by Republicans trying to mitigate the impact of the draconian law. For example, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) offered an amendment that was very simple: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia." The majority Democrats refused to accept that amendment -- or any OTHER amendment along the same lines! Far-leftist Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have introduced the bill into the Senate. However, because of the OUTRAGE they're hearing from their constituents -- YOU AND ME -- they're going to try to sneak in through by adding it as an amendment to a completely different bill... and Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid has reaffirmed his plans to have the Senate vote on this dangerous bill before Congress' August recess! And that means WE have to take action NOW!
TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT THE "PEDOPHILE PROTECTION ACT":SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!In George Orwell's classic book, "1984," the State was constantly cracking down on what they called "thought crimes" -- that is, you didn't face prosecution just because of what you DID -- but also because of what you THOUGHT. That is EXACTLY what this so-called "hate crimes" bill will do -- it blurs the lines between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. If we go down this road, where does it end? With speech monitors and thought police? As Janet Porter of Faith2Action noted, "Pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law. Speaking out against the homosexual agenda could also make you a felon if you are said to influence someone who pushes away that unwelcome advance. And pedophiles and other sexual deviants would enjoy an elevated level of protection while children, seniors, veterans, and churches would not." Rep. Gohmert warned that this law would be used against pastors -- or anyone else -- who speaks against homosexuality or other alternative sexual lifestyle choices, saying that it provides that anyone who through speech "induces" commission of a violent hate crime "will be tried as a principal" alongside the active offender. Critics say that would allow for prosecutions against pastors who preach on biblical opposition to homosexuality if someone who hears such a message later is accused of any crime. A pastor's sermon could be considered "hate speech" under this legislation if it's heard by someone who then commits an act of violence against someone based on "sexual orientation." The pastor could be prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit a hate crime". Don't think it could happen? It already is. Similar state laws have already resulted in persecution for Christians. In Philadelphia several years ago, a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival. In Canada, which already has severely restrictive "hate crime" laws, government "Human Rights Commissions" review any "suspect" speech or actions that might be perceived as being against any of their "protected classes." So today, Canada has a major national magazine, a federal political party leader and a registered political party, a major Catholic newspaper (Catholic Insight) and an internationally renowned journalist (Mark Steyn) -- all of whom are being investigated by appointed "hate speech therapists" from the commissions. Even Focus on the Family, one of the largest Christian publishing and broadcasting organizations in the nation, has admitted that it has been reviewing, and if necessary editing, its broadcasts to avoid complications with Canadian "hate crimes" laws. THIS IS WHAT WE FACE IN OUR FUTURE -- unless we take action NOW to stop this bill in the Senate! That's why we've set up our website to enable you to send "Blast Faxes" to every single U.S. Senator AT ONCE, demanding that they REJECT this pro-pedophile "thought crimes" bill -- the "Pedophile Protection Act"! For about what it would cost you in time and telephone charges, you can send Blast Faxes to Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- EVERYONE in the U.S. Senate, DEMANDING that they say NO to so-called "hate crimes" legislation!
TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT THE "PEDOPHILE PROTECTION ACT":SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!
Please, take action right away to STOP this bill dead in its tracks!
Sincerely,
William Greene,
President
RightMarch.com
PACP.S. FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined over the last ten years. In 2007, of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the U.S., only NINE were determined to be motivated by bias. This is a so-called "solution" to a problem that doesn't even exist!!! And what does President Barack Obama say? "I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance." THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS -- and it MUST be stopped! Send your faxes right away to make sure these Senators get a STRONG message, to STOP this so-called "hate crimes" legislation NOW -- Thank you!
What is Socialism?
Well, I suppose I can't talk about capitalism without giving you the other side of the coin which is socialism. Before I give you the definition of socialism I'd like to give you some facts. Did you know that people under the age of 30 ... which is our next generation ...37% preffered capitalism, 33% favored socialism, and a whopping 30% were undecided. UNDECIDED? Are you people insane? That's just plain scary!
When americans say that socialism is a better system than capitalism they are essentially saying they prefer to be led and fed by the state than be free. Their saying, perhaps ignorantly, that they prefer increased state control over their personal decisions because having a cap on success is an appropriate price to pay for also having a cap on failure.
Now on to what socialism is;
Socialism is an economic system characterized by public ownership and centralized planning of all major industries (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, and medical facilities. Under capitalism, these giant enterprises dominate the economy but are privately owned and operated for the purpose of generating wealth for their owners by extracting it from working people who are paid only a small fraction of what their labor produces. Socialism turns this around so that the class that produces the wealth can collectively decide how it will be used for the benefit of all.
As African American poet and communist Langston Hughes wrote in "Good Morning, Revolution":
Together, We can take everything:
Factories, arsenals, houses, ships,
Railroads, forests, fields, orchards…
And turn 'em over to the people who work.
Rule 'em and run 'em for us people who work.
Real socialism is, by definition, democratic. It is economic as well as political democracy. Many capitalist countries boast of their democratic institutions, but this is an illusion because all the political power is in the hands of those who hold the wealth. Socialism prioritizes human needs and eliminates the profit motive that drives war, ecological destruction, and inequalities based on gender, race, nationality and sexuality.Like capitalism, socialism must be international so that global resources can be shared. No country can be truly independent of the global economy because until capitalism is defeated internationally it will continue to sabotage efforts to build socialism. Achieving socialism in the United States, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, is necessary to any country being able to determine its own destiny.
Types of socialism
Most socialists identify themselves as Marxists in recognition of Karl Marx, who discovered the economic laws underlying capitalism. Marx and his lifelong collaborator Frederick Engels laid the foundation of Marxist economics, the philosophical concept of dialectical materialism, and the method of social analysis known as historical materialism.
Leninism denotes the concepts of a disciplined, revolutionary party and the principled, intransigent vision of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, key leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution. Lenin's works on imperialism, the nature of the state, and the rights of national minorities are essential components of the socialist tradition.
Trotskyism is the continuation of the Marxist and Leninist current led by Leon Trotsky, co-leader with Lenin of the Russian Revolution. When the Stalinist bureaucracy rose to power in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, Trotsky rallied an international Left Opposition against the betrayal of the revolution's goals. Trotskyism stands for Permanent Revolution, internationalism, and the strategy of the united front against fascism. Trotsky was murdered by a Stalinist assassin in 1940.
Socialist feminism was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s by founders of the Freedom Socialist Party and Radical Women. It is a Marxist, Leninist, and Trotskyist tendency that acknowledges that the most oppressed sector of the modern working class is composed of women, particularly women of color, whose life experience of exploitation gives them the strength and determination to carry through a revolution against all forms of oppression. Socialist feminists recognize the revolutionary leadership of working class women, people of color, and queers, and others multiply afflicted by capitalism. Socialist feminists orient to grassroots, rank-and-file women and men rather than to the predominantly white male aristocrats of labor who make up the union bureaucracy.
Several currents that emerged from the socialist and communist movements have lost their revolutionary character and misstate the basic principles of socialism's founders. These include: social-democrats, socialist reformers who support mere electoral revision of the capitalist system; Stalinists, who arose out of the Soviet bureaucracy as supporters of Stalin's brutal dictatorship and who advocate peaceful co-existence with capitalism and immersion in bourgeois parties; and Maoists, China-oriented Stalinists, who frequently describe themselves as Marxist-Leninists.
When americans say that socialism is a better system than capitalism they are essentially saying they prefer to be led and fed by the state than be free. Their saying, perhaps ignorantly, that they prefer increased state control over their personal decisions because having a cap on success is an appropriate price to pay for also having a cap on failure.
Now on to what socialism is;
Socialism is an economic system characterized by public ownership and centralized planning of all major industries (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, and medical facilities. Under capitalism, these giant enterprises dominate the economy but are privately owned and operated for the purpose of generating wealth for their owners by extracting it from working people who are paid only a small fraction of what their labor produces. Socialism turns this around so that the class that produces the wealth can collectively decide how it will be used for the benefit of all.
As African American poet and communist Langston Hughes wrote in "Good Morning, Revolution":
Together, We can take everything:
Factories, arsenals, houses, ships,
Railroads, forests, fields, orchards…
And turn 'em over to the people who work.
Rule 'em and run 'em for us people who work.
Real socialism is, by definition, democratic. It is economic as well as political democracy. Many capitalist countries boast of their democratic institutions, but this is an illusion because all the political power is in the hands of those who hold the wealth. Socialism prioritizes human needs and eliminates the profit motive that drives war, ecological destruction, and inequalities based on gender, race, nationality and sexuality.Like capitalism, socialism must be international so that global resources can be shared. No country can be truly independent of the global economy because until capitalism is defeated internationally it will continue to sabotage efforts to build socialism. Achieving socialism in the United States, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, is necessary to any country being able to determine its own destiny.
Types of socialism
Most socialists identify themselves as Marxists in recognition of Karl Marx, who discovered the economic laws underlying capitalism. Marx and his lifelong collaborator Frederick Engels laid the foundation of Marxist economics, the philosophical concept of dialectical materialism, and the method of social analysis known as historical materialism.
Leninism denotes the concepts of a disciplined, revolutionary party and the principled, intransigent vision of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, key leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution. Lenin's works on imperialism, the nature of the state, and the rights of national minorities are essential components of the socialist tradition.
Trotskyism is the continuation of the Marxist and Leninist current led by Leon Trotsky, co-leader with Lenin of the Russian Revolution. When the Stalinist bureaucracy rose to power in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, Trotsky rallied an international Left Opposition against the betrayal of the revolution's goals. Trotskyism stands for Permanent Revolution, internationalism, and the strategy of the united front against fascism. Trotsky was murdered by a Stalinist assassin in 1940.
Socialist feminism was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s by founders of the Freedom Socialist Party and Radical Women. It is a Marxist, Leninist, and Trotskyist tendency that acknowledges that the most oppressed sector of the modern working class is composed of women, particularly women of color, whose life experience of exploitation gives them the strength and determination to carry through a revolution against all forms of oppression. Socialist feminists recognize the revolutionary leadership of working class women, people of color, and queers, and others multiply afflicted by capitalism. Socialist feminists orient to grassroots, rank-and-file women and men rather than to the predominantly white male aristocrats of labor who make up the union bureaucracy.
Several currents that emerged from the socialist and communist movements have lost their revolutionary character and misstate the basic principles of socialism's founders. These include: social-democrats, socialist reformers who support mere electoral revision of the capitalist system; Stalinists, who arose out of the Soviet bureaucracy as supporters of Stalin's brutal dictatorship and who advocate peaceful co-existence with capitalism and immersion in bourgeois parties; and Maoists, China-oriented Stalinists, who frequently describe themselves as Marxist-Leninists.
What is Capitalism?
Let me start off what capitalism isn't! Capitalism isn't about money it's about freedon - the freedom to try and fail that made the US the richest industrial nation in the world by 1905 and the freedom that has kept us there ever since.
Capitalism is a socio-economic system in which private ownership means profit to the owner. The owner controls the means of production, so the profit belongs to the private business owner. In capitalism, the free market determines the production, distribution and price of goods and services.
A free market is unregulated supply and demand with little government interference in matters of trade. Price agreements are made by buyers and sellers and the market dictates supply and demand. Competition policies may exist in a free market capitalist system.
Capitalistic competition policies are usually based on the efficiency of economic feasibility, while socialistic competition policies are often concerned with unity in a single competitive market. The opposite of a free market is a controlled market. The government controls supply and the price of goods and services.
Capitalism began in seventeenth century Europe and is associated with the European Enlightenment. The European Enlightenment focused on the idea of individual freedom to pursue one's own economic interests in order to make a profit. Capitalism realizes a profit through the means of production together with labor to produce the goods.
The labor in a capitalist system is called wage labor as wages must be paid to the laborers. The means of production means everything else required to produce goods including land and the property rights to it. Businesses run on capital and capital is what capitalists have. Capital is items of value that can produce more wealth.
Capitalism is considered a socio-economic system as it is not just a way of earning money and making a living, but is also a way of thinking about social organization. Capitalism is based on the idea of individualism and that individuals have the right to economic freedom. Communism is considered the opposite of capitalism as it is based on collectivism and shared wealth rather than individualism and individual wealth.
It's important to note the existence of laissez-faire capitalism and its later replacement by the Keynesian system. Laissez-faire means 'letting go' in French and laissez-faire capitalism occurs when the government lets all of its control over trade and economic concerns go and lets the market take over in all aspects. A crucial theory behind laissez-faire capitalism is that unemployment is voluntary because of the individual choice to pursue economic gain.
The Great Depression, a period of harsh economic decline in the 1930s, led to high unemployment rates that were not at all voluntary and this led to the death of laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism's rescue is credited to English economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes said that "The importance of money flows from it being a link between the present and the future." His innovative approach of macroeconomics that analyzes business cycles and labor markets helped prevent further economic depression. Keynesian economic methodology continues to further the growth of capitalism today.
Capitalism is a socio-economic system in which private ownership means profit to the owner. The owner controls the means of production, so the profit belongs to the private business owner. In capitalism, the free market determines the production, distribution and price of goods and services.
A free market is unregulated supply and demand with little government interference in matters of trade. Price agreements are made by buyers and sellers and the market dictates supply and demand. Competition policies may exist in a free market capitalist system.
Capitalistic competition policies are usually based on the efficiency of economic feasibility, while socialistic competition policies are often concerned with unity in a single competitive market. The opposite of a free market is a controlled market. The government controls supply and the price of goods and services.
Capitalism began in seventeenth century Europe and is associated with the European Enlightenment. The European Enlightenment focused on the idea of individual freedom to pursue one's own economic interests in order to make a profit. Capitalism realizes a profit through the means of production together with labor to produce the goods.
The labor in a capitalist system is called wage labor as wages must be paid to the laborers. The means of production means everything else required to produce goods including land and the property rights to it. Businesses run on capital and capital is what capitalists have. Capital is items of value that can produce more wealth.
Capitalism is considered a socio-economic system as it is not just a way of earning money and making a living, but is also a way of thinking about social organization. Capitalism is based on the idea of individualism and that individuals have the right to economic freedom. Communism is considered the opposite of capitalism as it is based on collectivism and shared wealth rather than individualism and individual wealth.
It's important to note the existence of laissez-faire capitalism and its later replacement by the Keynesian system. Laissez-faire means 'letting go' in French and laissez-faire capitalism occurs when the government lets all of its control over trade and economic concerns go and lets the market take over in all aspects. A crucial theory behind laissez-faire capitalism is that unemployment is voluntary because of the individual choice to pursue economic gain.
The Great Depression, a period of harsh economic decline in the 1930s, led to high unemployment rates that were not at all voluntary and this led to the death of laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism's rescue is credited to English economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes said that "The importance of money flows from it being a link between the present and the future." His innovative approach of macroeconomics that analyzes business cycles and labor markets helped prevent further economic depression. Keynesian economic methodology continues to further the growth of capitalism today.
Conservatives urged to protest 'hate-crimes' bill today
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/9/2009 6:00:00 AM
Today is National "Stop S. 909" Day.
The American Family Association, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and other conservative activist groups are urging their supporters to call, e-mail, fax, or visit their senators today to express their disapproval of S. 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Senate Bill 909). The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., a member of the conservative coalition known as the Arlington Group, says the measure would have a chilling effect on the religious liberty of pastors. "Back in 2006, [Democratic Representative] Artur Davis from Alabama, who will be running for governor by the way in that great state, made a statement to [Representative] Louie Gohmert [R-Texas] in a [House] subcommittee meeting that a pastor could be held liable or [as] a co-conspirator of sorts in a hate crime if we found out that his preaching and teaching incited -- according to their thinking -- someone to commit a violent act against someone that is gay," Jackson explains. In the previous Congress, Senate Democrats tried to add hate-crimes legislation as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. Many conservative activists expect that will be attempted again before the August recess.
Today is National "Stop S. 909" Day.
The American Family Association, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and other conservative activist groups are urging their supporters to call, e-mail, fax, or visit their senators today to express their disapproval of S. 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Senate Bill 909). The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., a member of the conservative coalition known as the Arlington Group, says the measure would have a chilling effect on the religious liberty of pastors. "Back in 2006, [Democratic Representative] Artur Davis from Alabama, who will be running for governor by the way in that great state, made a statement to [Representative] Louie Gohmert [R-Texas] in a [House] subcommittee meeting that a pastor could be held liable or [as] a co-conspirator of sorts in a hate crime if we found out that his preaching and teaching incited -- according to their thinking -- someone to commit a violent act against someone that is gay," Jackson explains. In the previous Congress, Senate Democrats tried to add hate-crimes legislation as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. Many conservative activists expect that will be attempted again before the August recess.
Remember the Sacrifice ...
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr, noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over his home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The Redcoats jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.
Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on theprotection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” They gave you and me a free and independent America.
The history books never told you a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn’t fight just the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government! Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn’t. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It’s not much to ask for the price they paid.
Remember: freedom is never free!
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr, noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over his home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The Redcoats jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.
Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on theprotection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” They gave you and me a free and independent America.
The history books never told you a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn’t fight just the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government! Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn’t. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It’s not much to ask for the price they paid.
Remember: freedom is never free!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
