In another blow to the ACLU (not the kind the Kentucky ACLU chapter likes), the Washington Times recently published an article by Robert Knight about Liberty Counsel's most recent victory against the ACLU:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has lost its six-year campaign to tear down a Ten Commandments monument at the Dixie County, Florida, courthouse.
They’ve even lost their usual extortion money for harassing a community.
The case fell apart after the plaintiff, an anonymous North Carolina man who had planned to come to Dixie County to live in his RV, decided not to move there after all.
Senior U.S. District Judge Maurice M. Paul dismissed the case without prejudice on Feb. 13, because the plaintiff lacked standing. The ACLU could re-file if an actual resident is willing to buck the strong tide of sentiment in the county. For now, Mr. “Heel on Wheels” [not his actual nickname] has sunk the ship.
In February 2007, the ACLU filed a lawsuit naming “John Doe” as the plaintiff. Judge Paul ruled in 2011 that the monument was an establishment of religion, and awarded $130,000 in legal fees to the ACLU, which had tried to finger the taxpayers for $160,000. He then stayed his order, and was reversed by the 11th Circuit. When the plaintiff pulled out, it blew up the whole thing, including the ACLU’s award of legal fees.
Harry Mihet, an attorney at Liberty Counsel, which represented Dixie County, found the outcome pleasing: “We went from an order that ‘the monument goes and you have to pay $130,000 to the ACLU,’ to ‘the monument stays, and the ACLU has to pay a total of $3,600,’” Mr. Mihet told me.
For the 75-year-old “John Doe,” the dismissal’s bright spot is that he won’t have to leave North Carolina’s barbecue country for less certain barbecue conditions in Florida. He made the decision not to move upon learning that his identity would be revealed if the case proceeded. The initial ruling had triggered a pro-monument rally of 1,500 in nearby Cross City, whose population is 1,700, according to Ocala.com. So far, the ACLU has not insisted that Cross City change its name.
Mr. “Doe” apparently figured, according to the ACLU, that his new neighbors would welcome him not with their own version of home-cooked barbecue but with something a little stronger. No word on whether the good citizens of Dixie County will countersue for defamation, claiming that “John Doe” and the ACLU have slyly caricatured them as violent half-wits right out of the movie “Deliverance.”
“The ACLU got caught with its hands in the constitutional cookie jar,” Mr. Mihet said in a press release. “In getting kicked out of court, the ACLU has learned that it cannot impose its San Francisco values upon a small town in Florida, using a phantom member from North Carolina.”
Liberty Counsel argued that not only did the plaintiff lack standing but that “the case presents a Free Speech, not an Establishment Clause, issue. The Open Forum policy allows private citizens to erect private historical displays at their own expense.”
The five-foot-tall, 12,000-pound monument was erected at the top of the courthouse steps in 2006 after Joe H. Anderson Jr., chairman and founder of Lake City-based road builder Anderson Columbia, purchased it for $20,000.
Joe Anderson is another story. Not only has he funded several other Ten Commandments monuments in Florida, but also a “revival” mobile display. It’s parked somewhere until legal threats arise, and then it takes off down the road. “He’s having some fun with the ACLU,” Mr. Mihet said.
“We’re just getting started,” Mr. Anderson, 73, told me on Friday, saying that he had several requests from other counties to erect Ten Commandment monuments. “We got a bunch of them up right now, already built, ready to go.”
After the initial ruling, Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented:
“Dixie County is not establishing a religion by allowing a private individual to place a monument in a location where similar monuments may be placed. Dixie County should be applauded, not sued, for fostering open and robust speech in a public forum. Rather than take advantage of the forum, the ACLU prefers to censor speech with which it disagrees.”
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 in favor of a Ten Commandments monument alongside other historical items at the Texas state capitol, the ACLU has had a tougher time ripping God’s directives out of the ground. Oklahoma just installed a set of privately financed Ten Commandments on the state capitol grounds in November.
Hiram Saffer, director of litigation for Texas-based Liberty Institute, which will represent Oklahoma in any legal challenge, said the ACLU has not yet issued a challenge, but is actively trying to tear down crosses such as the one atop the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego. In that case, in which Liberty Institute is representing the Memorial Association, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to reverse a Ninth Circuit order to take down the cross. All parties are awaiting a “remedy” fashioned by the lower courts.
“The ACLU tried [and failed] to kick the Memorial Association out of the case,” Mr. Saffer said. “We suspect it was because they wanted to cut a deal with the Obama Administration.”
In King, N.C., Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is suing to have a veterans memorial remove a Christian flag and a statue of a soldier kneeling at the grave of a comrade. How do we know it’s a grave? Because of the cross. Liberty Institute is representing the American Legion.
While things get sorted out in the courts, wouldn’t it be interesting if Florida’s Mr. Anderson took his mobile Ten Commandment display on the road, up to North Carolina? He might run into “John Doe” and his RV.
Now, that would be a race to remember, and I wouldn’t bet against the Ten Commandments.
Robert Knight is Senior Fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/25/joe-doe-loses-his-fight-with-the10-commandments/#ixzz2Lx7wIhFD
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/25/joe-doe-loses-his-fight-with-the10-commandments/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
ACLU of Kentucky
The "American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kentucky" as they call themselves, is a organization convinced of ratifying the TRUE American rights set forth by the Constitution. They claim to be enforcing the idea of human rights, but they seem to forget several of others.
"The Freedom of Speech". Everyone, even organizations, have this right. If a organization wishes to make known their beliefs, even if the ACLU of Kentucky disagrees with them. I find it amazing that I can put "look how big my balls are" out on the front porch of a school portable, and they not say anything. But the second I put "God Bless America" on a sign in a school yard, I'm sued for all myself, and my family, own. Freedom of speech applies to EVERYONE.
It also constitutes that anyone can say anything, even if you disagree with it "ACLU".
The ACLU states that they enforce all rights of people. What about the most valued? Come on, the one that's in that dusty room at the Smithsonian?
Freedom of...um...um...RELIGON! People should have the ability to worship whomever and/or whatever they wish. This statement is not only made for Christians, but Muslims and Buddhists.
The ACLU of Kentucky and their gay leader Michael Aldridge is a joke. Did you know that the ACLU of Kentucky is trying to restrict religious freedom with follow sodomites at Kentucky Equality Federation and Louisville Fairness Campaign by fighting House Bill 279 currently before the governor for signature?
I saved my readers from the pain of seeing Bully Chris Hartman and Michael Aldridge drinking by the lake with alcohol paid for by taxpayers. Instead I opted to post no photos. Bully Hartman and Adridge are good friends, they go to D.C. together, camping, and sucking you all dry of money to do so. I have the photos.
Also in my opinion, the ACLU is a threat to national security. They constantly threaten U.S. Government agencies about "Spying on citizens". The government needs to do little things like this in order to keep us safe guys! It is a new world. And in this new world people want to commit REAL hurt on America.
Some will even go as far as torturing all Americans until they die, then decrementing their bodies. I would much rather allow my government to spy on us a little, then have that happen to my family and friends for just being American.
The ACLU is simply put, is the worlds worst agency for America. They claim to enforce one right, but they stab all the other rights in the back in the process. I honestly believe that they world would be a better place without the "American Civil Liberties Union". They disrupt society and make the world very black and white. And as anyone that has seen a crayon box, how boring is black and white?
10 Reasons to Stop the ACLU Countdown (from Stop the ACLU):
10: The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly…
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.
7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it’s the ACLU’s top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU’s pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.
6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercising their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.
5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.
4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don’t practice the principles they preach.
3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.
2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.
1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money.
It also constitutes that anyone can say anything, even if you disagree with it "ACLU".
The ACLU states that they enforce all rights of people. What about the most valued? Come on, the one that's in that dusty room at the Smithsonian?
Freedom of...um...um...RELIGON! People should have the ability to worship whomever and/or whatever they wish. This statement is not only made for Christians, but Muslims and Buddhists.
The ACLU of Kentucky and their gay leader Michael Aldridge is a joke. Did you know that the ACLU of Kentucky is trying to restrict religious freedom with follow sodomites at Kentucky Equality Federation and Louisville Fairness Campaign by fighting House Bill 279 currently before the governor for signature?
Also in my opinion, the ACLU is a threat to national security. They constantly threaten U.S. Government agencies about "Spying on citizens". The government needs to do little things like this in order to keep us safe guys! It is a new world. And in this new world people want to commit REAL hurt on America.
Some will even go as far as torturing all Americans until they die, then decrementing their bodies. I would much rather allow my government to spy on us a little, then have that happen to my family and friends for just being American.
The ACLU is simply put, is the worlds worst agency for America. They claim to enforce one right, but they stab all the other rights in the back in the process. I honestly believe that they world would be a better place without the "American Civil Liberties Union". They disrupt society and make the world very black and white. And as anyone that has seen a crayon box, how boring is black and white?
10 Reasons to Stop the ACLU Countdown (from Stop the ACLU):
10: The ACLU was founded by Communist, with communist ideals, communist goals, and they continue to impose a Communist like agenda on America daily. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin stated clearly…
My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
During the 1930s, the ACLU started to engage in work combating police misconduct and Native American rights. Most of the ACLU's cases came from the Communist party and Jehovah's Witnesses. In 1940, ACLU leadership was caught up in the Red Scare, the promotion of fear of a potential rise of communism or radical leftism, used by anti-leftist proponents. In the United States, the First Red Scare was about worker (socialist) revolution and political radicalism. The Second Red Scare was focused on national and foreign communists influencing society, infiltrating the federal government, or both.
The Communist party of the United States was routinely harassed and oppressed by government officials, leading it to be the primary client of the ACLU.
9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
ACLU POLICY “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”ACLU Policy #47
8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. They are currently doing everything in their power to hurt this organization. They attacked their free speech right to exclude gays, and are threatening schools, and fighting in court to get their charters shut down. The oppose the military supporting them, and will sue the pants off any school that attempts to charter them.
7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it’s the ACLU’s top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose it. If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU’s pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.
6. The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercising their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.
5. The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.
4. The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don’t practice the principles they preach.
Take a walk into the NYCLU’s Manhattan headquarters – which it shares with other organizations – and you’ll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search.
3. The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980’s. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.
In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.
“The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”
The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.”
2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.
1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Oppose Barack Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense!
Former Senator Chuck Hagel's prior statements and positions on Israel, Iran, and U.S. military operations and funding make him the wrong choice to be the United States of America's Secretary of Defense.
As Senator Ted Cruz recently wrote… "[Hagel's] views on foreign and defense policy are out of the mainstream, and he is not a good fit for Secretary of Defense… His record on Israel strongly suggests that he views Israel not as our friend but as a nuisance."
Bipartisan opposition is growing against his nomination.
Mainstream Americans want a Secretary of Defense who will readily recognize and defend our allies, like Israel, while protecting us from our enemies and those who intend to do us harm, like Iran.
There are far better choices for Defense Secretary than Chuck Hagel!
As Senator Ted Cruz recently wrote… "[Hagel's] views on foreign and defense policy are out of the mainstream, and he is not a good fit for Secretary of Defense… His record on Israel strongly suggests that he views Israel not as our friend but as a nuisance."
Bipartisan opposition is growing against his nomination.
Mainstream Americans want a Secretary of Defense who will readily recognize and defend our allies, like Israel, while protecting us from our enemies and those who intend to do us harm, like Iran.
There are far better choices for Defense Secretary than Chuck Hagel!
Monday, November 5, 2012
DOJ Agrees that High Court Should Reconsider Liberty’s ObamaCare Ruling
Tomorrow is the most important election of our lifetime with state and federal races.
"Those opposing us will get what they deserve" - Obama Advisor (source Mat Staver)
We now know precisely what is in store for biblical and values voters if Barack Obama wins another four years in the White House. Just hours from determining the direction of our nation, I still haven’t heard from all of our partners and I am concerned that you may have missed Valerie Jarrett’s chilling warning.
Jarrett is considered to be the Obama administration’s most powerful advisor and I don’t doubt she’ll do everything possible to enact her threat if given the chance. Please see my message below and prayerfully consider how, in this late hour, you can help Liberty Action PAC defeat this statist regime. Please read my urgent message from the weekend below – Mat.
We must not let Obama win another four years. The consequence would be disastrous. Thank you in advance for your outstanding support!
Mat Staver
Liberty Action PAC
http://libertycounsel.org
he U.S. Department of Justice has informed the Supreme Court that it does not oppose Liberty University’s Petition for Rehearing the Court’s denial of review of the case of Liberty University v. Geithner. Liberty Counsel, representing Liberty University and two private individuals, asked the Court to grant its Petition for review, vacate the ruling of the Court of Appeals, and remand (send back) the case for the Court of Appeals to consider the outstanding and unresolved claims, including the constitutionality of the employer mandate and the Free Exercise claim.
The Court of Appeals in the Liberty University case ruled 2-1 that the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) barred it from reaching the merits of the case, ruling that if the individual insurance mandate in ObamaCare is a tax, then the tax had to be paid before a court could entertain the suit. Liberty Counsel filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court heard three days of oral argument on challenges to Obamacare, and the first day was dedicated to the issue raised in the Liberty University case. In June 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the AIA does not apply to the individual insurance mandate, but did not reach the merits of Liberty University’s case. The Supreme Court then denied Liberty University’s request for review. Liberty Counsel then asked the Court to grant its petition, vacate the ruling of the Court of Appeals, and send it back to address the unresolved merits of the case, namely, the employer mandate and the Free Exercise claim based on ObamaCare’s forced funding of abortion. The DOJ filed its response late yesterday and agreed with Liberty Counsel’s request.
If the Court grants the request, now unopposed, then Liberty University v. Geithner will be the first case in the nation in which a federal court of appeals would consider challenges to the employer mandate and the Free Exercise of Religion claim. The case could then go back to the Supreme Court in 2013.
“I am very pleased that the Department of Justice agrees that the case should go back to the Court of Appeals to address the unresolved issues in ObamaCare. ObamaCare is the biggest funding of abortion in American history,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law. “ObamaCare will for the first time require employers and individuals to directly fund abortion. This abortion mandate collides with religious freedom and the rights of conscience,” Staver said.
Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.
"Those opposing us will get what they deserve" - Obama Advisor (source Mat Staver)
We now know precisely what is in store for biblical and values voters if Barack Obama wins another four years in the White House. Just hours from determining the direction of our nation, I still haven’t heard from all of our partners and I am concerned that you may have missed Valerie Jarrett’s chilling warning.
Jarrett is considered to be the Obama administration’s most powerful advisor and I don’t doubt she’ll do everything possible to enact her threat if given the chance. Please see my message below and prayerfully consider how, in this late hour, you can help Liberty Action PAC defeat this statist regime. Please read my urgent message from the weekend below – Mat.
We must not let Obama win another four years. The consequence would be disastrous. Thank you in advance for your outstanding support!
Mat Staver
Liberty Action PAC
http://libertycounsel.org
he U.S. Department of Justice has informed the Supreme Court that it does not oppose Liberty University’s Petition for Rehearing the Court’s denial of review of the case of Liberty University v. Geithner. Liberty Counsel, representing Liberty University and two private individuals, asked the Court to grant its Petition for review, vacate the ruling of the Court of Appeals, and remand (send back) the case for the Court of Appeals to consider the outstanding and unresolved claims, including the constitutionality of the employer mandate and the Free Exercise claim.
The Court of Appeals in the Liberty University case ruled 2-1 that the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) barred it from reaching the merits of the case, ruling that if the individual insurance mandate in ObamaCare is a tax, then the tax had to be paid before a court could entertain the suit. Liberty Counsel filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court heard three days of oral argument on challenges to Obamacare, and the first day was dedicated to the issue raised in the Liberty University case. In June 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the AIA does not apply to the individual insurance mandate, but did not reach the merits of Liberty University’s case. The Supreme Court then denied Liberty University’s request for review. Liberty Counsel then asked the Court to grant its petition, vacate the ruling of the Court of Appeals, and send it back to address the unresolved merits of the case, namely, the employer mandate and the Free Exercise claim based on ObamaCare’s forced funding of abortion. The DOJ filed its response late yesterday and agreed with Liberty Counsel’s request.
If the Court grants the request, now unopposed, then Liberty University v. Geithner will be the first case in the nation in which a federal court of appeals would consider challenges to the employer mandate and the Free Exercise of Religion claim. The case could then go back to the Supreme Court in 2013.
“I am very pleased that the Department of Justice agrees that the case should go back to the Court of Appeals to address the unresolved issues in ObamaCare. ObamaCare is the biggest funding of abortion in American history,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law. “ObamaCare will for the first time require employers and individuals to directly fund abortion. This abortion mandate collides with religious freedom and the rights of conscience,” Staver said.
Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.
God will see that the right person wins and it will not be Palumbo
Folks, you know that you will not be elected to another term when the gay community turns against you as they have Lexington's Representative Ruth Ann Palumbo for being a slum lord.
When you sponsor legislation for the so-called "gay rights" movement and they in-turn strive to disgrace your reputation it shows that gays have no morals, the very reason sodomites alone hold the shame that forced God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
Joe Sonka, owner of Barefoot and Progressive
I’m sure there’s a real explanation, and whatever it is, by the looks of it, it’s a rough one. But don’t blame Barack Obama just because it’s easy. That’s ridiculous.
Jacob Payne - Page One Kentucky
Payne may still be recovering from the sealed lawsuit against him.
Does anyone wonder why Palumbo's son committed suicide?
The comments jump at you with sin
and
Palumbo's opponent, Richard Marrs will cleanup Lexington: Richard Marrs is married to his wife Melanie and they have four children ages 6-12. He enjoys spending time with his family and coaching his sons in various sports leagues.
None of his children have met the fire of hell by committing suicide, a sin my fellow Christians that cannot be forgiven.
This proves my earlier lost that the sodomites are loyal to no one.
1. Kentucky's alleged equality organizations failing
2. God punished New York because of gay marriage law
3. Gay Marriage Threatens Our Freedom
4. Unions That Divide: Churches Split Over Gay Marriage
Begging people to vote for State Representatives Palumbo, Westrom, and Burch? That would be Kentucky Equality Federation's Jordan Palmer. Palmer says it is his particular "Kentucky Spirit" blog. Someone put this man out of his misery. He may have rebounded from his surgery but God continues to punish sodomites. Shame on him for getting the feds to force two people to plead guilty to a hate crime. You cannot read someone's mind and it was just a bad drug deal. Gays are drunks and drug addicts who spread disease.
When you sponsor legislation for the so-called "gay rights" movement and they in-turn strive to disgrace your reputation it shows that gays have no morals, the very reason sodomites alone hold the shame that forced God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
Joe Sonka, owner of Barefoot and Progressive
It’s no surprise when Republicans resort to blaming the President and Government regulations in order to divert attention from actual problems.
The Bush years crashed the economy? Blame Obama’s regulations.
The water is too clean? Blame Obama’s regulations.
Got a really annoying hang nail? Blame Obama’s regulations.
What happens less — because generally they’re smarter people… generally — is Democrats using Obama and his “regulations” to shirk their own responsibility.
But that, sadly, is exactly what Ruth Ann Palumbo, a state House representative from Lexington (since 1991) has done. She’s got a house, it’s rundown, the city’s code enforcement is telling her to fix it… and she ain’t doing nuthin.
This is pathetic:
Neighbors say the home at 10 Deepwood Drive, with its trash-strewn yard, is a worsening eyesore and a public health risk because raccoons and rats come and go through various holes in its exterior.
“I’ve been here eight years, and that house has never been lived in. It’s been abandoned and it’s bringing down property values all along the street,” said Barry Crume, who also lives on Deepwood Drive, a cul-de-sac of large, handsome brick and stone homes.
“I don’t know if she’s embarrassed that she can’t deal with this or if she thinks she’s above the law because she’s an elected official,” Crume said. “Whatever it is, she needs to fix it.”
Now, look. If it’s an issue of money, my heart goes out to Ruth Ann. If it’s just a matter of time, I understand… for instance, I’ve got a pile of dishes I need to do and they, apparently, aren’t doing themselves.
But what won’t be excused is this:
Speaking this week, Palumbo said she never intended for her home to fall into such disrepair. She said she delayed rehabilitation because of hazards inside the house — mold, asbestos and lead-based paint — that will require specialists to remove. Federal environmental rules for such work have been strengthened under President Barack Obama, she said.
“There are a lot of new regulations that we want to comply with,” said Palumbo, chairman of the House Economic Development Committee. “It wasn’t like you could just open the Yellow Pages and call someone to do all this kind of work.”
This is stupid. This is pandering. This is making an excuse of the lowest variety in order to avoid scrutiny and responsibility.
Let’s be clear: Ruth Ann Palumbo is blaming Barack Obama and government regulations for not fixing her house 8 years ago.
8 years ago, Ruth Ann’s house had asbestos, mold and lead-based paint, and 8 long year ago, Barack Obama and his regulation brownshirts stopped Ruth Ann from fixing up her house.
C’mon.
I’m sure there’s a real explanation, and whatever it is, by the looks of it, it’s a rough one. But don’t blame Barack Obama just because it’s easy. That’s ridiculous.
Jacob Payne - Page One Kentucky
No one in Lexington has the guts to bring this up because they fear retribution.
So I will.
Why on earth are you allowed to maintain your legislative seat when you don’t live in the district you represent?
The house you claim as your residence has been empty for years. There’s a giant dumpster that’s been in your front yard for at least a year (along with a portable pooper) but no building permit exists. No workmen ever show up. The Health Department has received complaints. Kevin Stinnett’s office has received complaints.
You used to stay on Old Paris Pike but that’s apparently not the case these days.
So why are you claiming to live where you clearly do not?
What’s the deal? What is your excuse?
I asked you a couple years ago and you still haven’t provided an answer.
Payne may still be recovering from the sealed lawsuit against him.
Does anyone wonder why Palumbo's son committed suicide?
The comments jump at you with sin
Dear Ruth Ann – I live on Deepwood Drive down the street from your house. I recently sent you a letter about your plan to either maintain or improve your property. You didn’t respond. I left you 3 messages at work and you didn’t respond. I have called your home phone number given out by your office and the voicemail is full. I stopped by Palumbo Lumber to talk with your sons about fixing your house and they didn’t have any answers. I am very frustrated because the condition of your home on Deepwood Drive is bringing down the property values. The appearance of your home is ruining the charm of our neighborhood. There are stray cats, racoons and opossum living in your attic. They crawl in your home through the big hole in your roof. Are you going to fix these problems? Please inform the 18 residents that live on Deepwood Drive what your plan is with your home. I have asked several times and cannot get you to answer any of my questions! if you cannot represent yourself in your own neighborhood, then how can you represent your constituents in your district?
and
Does anyone else think it’s ironic that Jaime Palumbo grew up on a street called Deepwood?
Palumbo's opponent, Richard Marrs will cleanup Lexington: Richard Marrs is married to his wife Melanie and they have four children ages 6-12. He enjoys spending time with his family and coaching his sons in various sports leagues.
None of his children have met the fire of hell by committing suicide, a sin my fellow Christians that cannot be forgiven.
This proves my earlier lost that the sodomites are loyal to no one.
1. Kentucky's alleged equality organizations failing
2. God punished New York because of gay marriage law
3. Gay Marriage Threatens Our Freedom
4. Unions That Divide: Churches Split Over Gay Marriage
Begging people to vote for State Representatives Palumbo, Westrom, and Burch? That would be Kentucky Equality Federation's Jordan Palmer. Palmer says it is his particular "Kentucky Spirit" blog. Someone put this man out of his misery. He may have rebounded from his surgery but God continues to punish sodomites. Shame on him for getting the feds to force two people to plead guilty to a hate crime. You cannot read someone's mind and it was just a bad drug deal. Gays are drunks and drug addicts who spread disease.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
God punished New York because of gay marriage law
The destructive impact of hurricane/tropical storm Sandy on New York could be God's vengeance for homosexual marriages being legal in that state. New York has never seen a storm like this before. Why? It is the vengeance of God. Though God does not openly show his awesome power as he did when destroying Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality, God controls nature.
Sodomites and non God fearing people at Kentucky Equality Federation, Lexington Fairness, Marriage Equality Kentucky, and Louisville Fairness Campaign should witness the warning of God.
Marriage Equality Kentucky people say they are disenfranchised because they cannot marry a person of the same sex, goat, pig, or what have you. If you support one of these organizations especially Marriage Equality Kentucky, repent now and become righteous before the clock chimes midnight.
We cannot even count on the Lexington Herald Leader or the Louisville Courier Journal to be objective, as Ann Coulter said they are corrupt progressives with each endorsing Obama and the gay agenda.
Sodomites and non God fearing people at Kentucky Equality Federation, Lexington Fairness, Marriage Equality Kentucky, and Louisville Fairness Campaign should witness the warning of God.
Marriage Equality Kentucky people say they are disenfranchised because they cannot marry a person of the same sex, goat, pig, or what have you. If you support one of these organizations especially Marriage Equality Kentucky, repent now and become righteous before the clock chimes midnight.
We cannot even count on the Lexington Herald Leader or the Louisville Courier Journal to be objective, as Ann Coulter said they are corrupt progressives with each endorsing Obama and the gay agenda.
As Brother John McTernan posted, When God Judges a Nation For Homosexuality. Some of the article is below, or read it all.
I want to clear something up. I am not saying this super destructive hurricane was because of the homosexual act. The Holy God of Israel will judge individuals for their sinful acts.
What I am saying is the judgment is for the government promoting homosexual “marriage” as an ordinance. Once a nation legalizes sin, like abortion and homosexual “marriage”: that nation falls under the direct judgment of the Holy God of Israel. God does not destroy a nation right away but first warns.
Also, the judgment comes from more than homosexuality. Abortion and pressuring Israel to divide God’s covenant land also brings severe judgment.
It now appears that the warnings for God are coming to an end, and the destructive judgments have arrived.
America has not repented of promoting the homosexual agenda so the judgments will not stop. You can be angry with me, but it does not change that America has fallen under the judgment hand of the Holy God of Israel. God will not tolerate homosexual “marriage”. It is the end of the line with sin.
Isaiah 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.
The following is a teaching from the Bible which shows what triggers God’s judgment on a nation. America is now nearly fully engaged in making these sins ordinances.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Gay Marriage Threatens Our Freedom
Gay Marriage Threatens Our Freedom
By James Milliken, Jr.
Referenda on changing the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships have become a recurrent feature of our electoral landscape in recent years.
Voters have rejected the proposed changes every time. Redefining marriage is indeed a big deal, which is not only a threat to liberty, but a significant step in the direction of totalitarian tyranny.
Despite thirty-plus campaigns, there has been little informed public discussion about what marriage is and the state's interest in maintaining traditional marriage (sadly, the proponents of redefining marriage prefer to rely on name-calling and intimidation, which leaves little room for dispassionate debate). As a consequence, many voters have never heard the actual arguments in defense of traditional marriage, but only the strawmen that its opponents are fond of pummeling, most of which (on the surface) appeal to the idea of freedom.
For example, I once heard a nationally-syndicated radio talk-show host, a self-identified libertarian who generally takes a conservative position, say: "not one person has been able to call in and tell me how two men or two women marrying each other will harm their own marriage" (in other words, mind your own business). Or how often have you heard something like "traditional marriage supporters are anti-freedom; they want to keep gay people from marrying the partner of their choice." I see a third of these strawmen every Sunday outside my church, where a protester holds a sign that says: "When did I get to vote on your marriage?"
Despite their surface plausibility, none of these arguments withstand more than cursory scrutiny. Consider the case of the radio personality: of course nobody had ever successfully argued on his show that two men or two women marrying each other would harm their own marriage, because nobody anywhere defends traditional marriage on that ground; the arguments against redefining marriage are much more fundamental. The real question is whether then union of a man and women is different from that of two men or two women (hint: the answer has something to do with babies), and whether the state has an interest in fostering and protecting exclusive heterosexual relationships that it does not have in same-sex relationships. The radio host didn't mention whether he had ever had that discussion on his show (curious, because that is what I hear defenders of traditional marriage talking about).
This threat is not merely theoretical. The very real consequences of the encroaching tyranny of the gay marriage crowd are already becoming apparent. A couple years ago, for instance, a redefinition of marriage passed by the Maine legislature was narrowly overturned in a "Peoples Veto" referendum. A critical factor in the repeal was the attempt by gay-marriage advocates to deprive a public-school social worker named Don Mandell of his license (and hence his livelihood) because he had appeared in a pro-traditional marriage ad (this in response a coworker who had appeared in a pro-gay marriage ad and had faced no censure).
There are numerous reports from around the country of teachers whose standing is threatened, or of students who are disciplined, for doing no more than expressing a pro-traditional marriage opinion. Outside of the school system we see professional photographers, Knights of Columbus halls, and even dating services facing lawsuits simply because they decline to include same-sex weddings among their services. In the case of Chik-Fil-A we have seen public officials threaten to ban a business simply because its owner has expressed his personal support of traditional marriage, which is still the law of the land in most of our country. It is not at all far-fetched to project that today's harassment will become full-scale prosecution if the full gay marriage legal agenda is enacted (as is already the case in Canada and parts of Europe).
If that weren't bad enough, it gets worse. The redefinition of marriage by the state would not only mean a violation of the freedom of those who disagree: it would be a giant step closer to a government that is genuinely totalitarian.
More than that, and perhaps of more interest to libertarians and other lovers of freedom, families are, along with organized religion, the most important "mediating institutions" between the individual and the state. Mediating institutions are groups of people large and small that help serve as a check on the government, and provide individuals with a way of influencing the state much more effectively than they can do on their own. These independent sources of authority are essential to the preservation of liberty: without them the behemoth of the state would easily crush the lone citizen. That's why totalitarians of every stripe make the subjugation or even destruction of these institutions (especially the family and organized religion) a top priority. Giving the state the power to manipulate, redefine and hence to unmake such essential protectors of freedom must necessarily lead to an ever more powerful state, and an ever smaller place for individual liberty.
The desire of libertarians to work to preserve personal freedom is quite understandable, but the legal redefinition of marriage would do just the opposite: it necessarily means the loss of freedom to express and to act according to beliefs at odds with the gay agenda; more ominously, it will grant to the state an enormous and unprecedented power for remaking society according to its own designs.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/gay_marriage_threatens_our_freedom.html#ixzz2Ad69UeTw
By James Milliken, Jr.
Referenda on changing the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships have become a recurrent feature of our electoral landscape in recent years.
Voters have rejected the proposed changes every time. Redefining marriage is indeed a big deal, which is not only a threat to liberty, but a significant step in the direction of totalitarian tyranny.
Despite thirty-plus campaigns, there has been little informed public discussion about what marriage is and the state's interest in maintaining traditional marriage (sadly, the proponents of redefining marriage prefer to rely on name-calling and intimidation, which leaves little room for dispassionate debate). As a consequence, many voters have never heard the actual arguments in defense of traditional marriage, but only the strawmen that its opponents are fond of pummeling, most of which (on the surface) appeal to the idea of freedom.
For example, I once heard a nationally-syndicated radio talk-show host, a self-identified libertarian who generally takes a conservative position, say: "not one person has been able to call in and tell me how two men or two women marrying each other will harm their own marriage" (in other words, mind your own business). Or how often have you heard something like "traditional marriage supporters are anti-freedom; they want to keep gay people from marrying the partner of their choice." I see a third of these strawmen every Sunday outside my church, where a protester holds a sign that says: "When did I get to vote on your marriage?"
Despite their surface plausibility, none of these arguments withstand more than cursory scrutiny. Consider the case of the radio personality: of course nobody had ever successfully argued on his show that two men or two women marrying each other would harm their own marriage, because nobody anywhere defends traditional marriage on that ground; the arguments against redefining marriage are much more fundamental. The real question is whether then union of a man and women is different from that of two men or two women (hint: the answer has something to do with babies), and whether the state has an interest in fostering and protecting exclusive heterosexual relationships that it does not have in same-sex relationships. The radio host didn't mention whether he had ever had that discussion on his show (curious, because that is what I hear defenders of traditional marriage talking about).
This threat is not merely theoretical. The very real consequences of the encroaching tyranny of the gay marriage crowd are already becoming apparent. A couple years ago, for instance, a redefinition of marriage passed by the Maine legislature was narrowly overturned in a "Peoples Veto" referendum. A critical factor in the repeal was the attempt by gay-marriage advocates to deprive a public-school social worker named Don Mandell of his license (and hence his livelihood) because he had appeared in a pro-traditional marriage ad (this in response a coworker who had appeared in a pro-gay marriage ad and had faced no censure).
There are numerous reports from around the country of teachers whose standing is threatened, or of students who are disciplined, for doing no more than expressing a pro-traditional marriage opinion. Outside of the school system we see professional photographers, Knights of Columbus halls, and even dating services facing lawsuits simply because they decline to include same-sex weddings among their services. In the case of Chik-Fil-A we have seen public officials threaten to ban a business simply because its owner has expressed his personal support of traditional marriage, which is still the law of the land in most of our country. It is not at all far-fetched to project that today's harassment will become full-scale prosecution if the full gay marriage legal agenda is enacted (as is already the case in Canada and parts of Europe).
If that weren't bad enough, it gets worse. The redefinition of marriage by the state would not only mean a violation of the freedom of those who disagree: it would be a giant step closer to a government that is genuinely totalitarian.
More than that, and perhaps of more interest to libertarians and other lovers of freedom, families are, along with organized religion, the most important "mediating institutions" between the individual and the state. Mediating institutions are groups of people large and small that help serve as a check on the government, and provide individuals with a way of influencing the state much more effectively than they can do on their own. These independent sources of authority are essential to the preservation of liberty: without them the behemoth of the state would easily crush the lone citizen. That's why totalitarians of every stripe make the subjugation or even destruction of these institutions (especially the family and organized religion) a top priority. Giving the state the power to manipulate, redefine and hence to unmake such essential protectors of freedom must necessarily lead to an ever more powerful state, and an ever smaller place for individual liberty.
The desire of libertarians to work to preserve personal freedom is quite understandable, but the legal redefinition of marriage would do just the opposite: it necessarily means the loss of freedom to express and to act according to beliefs at odds with the gay agenda; more ominously, it will grant to the state an enormous and unprecedented power for remaking society according to its own designs.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/gay_marriage_threatens_our_freedom.html#ixzz2Ad69UeTw
Monday, June 25, 2012
John Edwards, Roger Clemens, and Federal Witch Hunts
Here's another example of why I don't trust my government, and why I want it to do less.
The prosecutions of John Edwards and Roger Clemens were a disgrace.
They wasted our tax dollars.
They cost years of life and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for these men.
The "not guilty" verdicts of both men was the only redeeming aspect their trials.
They should never have been prosecuted in the first place. The "laws" under which they were prosecuted had no moral or constitutional legitimacy.
Consider the Edwards case: Campaign finance regulations are an assault on freedom of conscience and the First Amendment. If I support a candidate, I have the human right to support him any way I want, directly or indirectly. My free press rights allow me to express myself, even if (especially if) it's about elections!
(In fact, campaign laws make it HARDER for the "little guy" to organize, whereas the wealthy can afford to pay lawyers and accountants to jump through regulatory hoops.)
The Clemens case was equally disgraceful. Is it okay to lie to someone who asks you about something that's none of their business? I think it is.
Drug prohibition, including steroid prohibition, is not authorized by any provision in the Constitution, and it violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Congressional hearings on steroids in baseball was a grandstanding, affront to the rule of law and called into question who should've gone on trial. (Hint: They probably have Chairman in front of their name.)
Moreover, Edwards and Clemens _had no victims_. They neither initiated violence nor engaged in theft. Therefore, their alleged actions weren't crimes.
I hope that Congress and the Justice Department's witch hunters - oops, District Attorneys - learn valuable lessons from these disgraces.
For the Edwards and Clemens juries sent a powerful message: agree or disagree with their ethics and actions, but these men do not belong in prison.
Regrettably, it may have been only due to their fame and pricey legal teams that Edwards and Clemens got off. Poor defendants often don't have a chance against overzealous prosecutors.
That's why you must repeal all federal victimless crime laws and end silly crusades such as "campaign finance reform" and the War on Drugs.
I agree with DownSizeDC.org on this issue and the post.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Unions That Divide: Churches Split Over Gay Marriage
At a black Pentecostal church in Raleigh, N.C., the Rev. Patrick Wooden entered the sanctuary on Sunday to a standing ovation, exulting that God’s “high hand” had led voters last week to pass a statewide amendment banning same-sex marriage. He took to the pulpit and denounced President Obama for taking a stand “in support of sin,” and “in opposition to the biblical model of marriage.”
In early May, North Carolina voted in large numbers for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, partnerships and civil unions, becoming the 30th state in the country and the last in the South to include a prohibition on gay marriage in the state constitution. A thousand miles away, at a predominantly white, Lutheran church in Madison, Wis., where a rainbow banner greets churchgoers arriving for services, the Rev. Susan Schneider preached that gay men and lesbians were included when Jesus commanded his followers to love one another: “Knocking down the walls is what Jesus was after.”
Mr. Obama’s declaration last week that he supports same-sex marriage prompted ministers around the country to take to their pulpits on Sunday and preach on the issue. But in the clash over homosexuality, the battle lines do not simply pit ministers against secular advocates for gay rights. Religion is on both sides in this conflict. The battle is actually church versus church, minister versus minister, and Scripture versus Scripture.
The dividing lines are often unpredictable. There are black churches that welcome openly gay couples, and white churches that do not. Some Presbyterian churches hire openly gay clergy members, while others will not. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin, but there are Catholic priests who secretly bless gay unions.
And leaders in the United Methodist Church have been debating whether to ordain openly gay ministers for four decades, and voted again just this month to uphold their prohibition. But there are Methodist ministers who perform same-sex marriages in defiance of church rules who share the denomination with ministers who preach that America is going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality.
More at the New York Times
Same-sex marriage became a reality in the United States in 2004 in the wake of a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that it was required under the equal protection clause of the commonwealth' Constitution. Prior to 2012, same-sex marriage was also legalized in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C. Early in 2012, Washington State and Maryland both approved same-sex marriage laws, but neither took effect immediately and both were expected to be challenged in referendums.
In early May, North Carolina voted in large numbers for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, partnerships and civil unions, becoming the 30th state in the country and the last in the South to include a prohibition on gay marriage in the state constitution. A thousand miles away, at a predominantly white, Lutheran church in Madison, Wis., where a rainbow banner greets churchgoers arriving for services, the Rev. Susan Schneider preached that gay men and lesbians were included when Jesus commanded his followers to love one another: “Knocking down the walls is what Jesus was after.”
Mr. Obama’s declaration last week that he supports same-sex marriage prompted ministers around the country to take to their pulpits on Sunday and preach on the issue. But in the clash over homosexuality, the battle lines do not simply pit ministers against secular advocates for gay rights. Religion is on both sides in this conflict. The battle is actually church versus church, minister versus minister, and Scripture versus Scripture.
The dividing lines are often unpredictable. There are black churches that welcome openly gay couples, and white churches that do not. Some Presbyterian churches hire openly gay clergy members, while others will not. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin, but there are Catholic priests who secretly bless gay unions.
And leaders in the United Methodist Church have been debating whether to ordain openly gay ministers for four decades, and voted again just this month to uphold their prohibition. But there are Methodist ministers who perform same-sex marriages in defiance of church rules who share the denomination with ministers who preach that America is going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality.
More at the New York Times
Sunday, June 17, 2012
If marriage loses, we all lose
The indispensible social pillar of marriage is being undermined and marginalized in our national discourse. I am concerned that some conservative leaders are backing down in their defense of marriage while making overt concessions to the pro-homosexual community.
Tragically, we are seeing a trend within conservative ranks de-emphasizing the importance of defending marriage from the attacks of pro-homosexual activists. And pro-marriage initiatives appear to be declining at the very time they are most desperately needed!
Some conservative leaders are either avoiding the issue or are actively diminishing the role of the marriage issue in 2012’s campaigns. There are even suggestions that natural marriage may not get much support at all in 2012’s conservative party platforms.
This retreat is totally unacceptable! If marriage loses, we all lose!
The Honorable Ken Blackwell, a Visiting Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law and highly respected political commentator, recently said it this way:
Respected conservative columnist Don Feder also weighed into this controversy:
If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do? The fact is, you and I and other enlightened pro-family citizens are going to have to be the ones who come forward to defend natural marriage in America!
I urge you to take a moment to sign our Statement of Support upholding the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
We are calling on all of our friends and supporters to insist that President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice (DOJ), congressional leaders, and military leaders actively comply with and defend the Defense of Marriage Act! This duly-passed act of the United States Congress is the law of the land and will remain so until that status is changed due to a holding by the U.S. Supreme Court!
Click here to sign Statement of Support upholding the federal Defense of Marriage Act: http://www.lcaction.cc/656/petition.asp
As you know, we are also incensed that activist judges have ruled in favor of same-sex “marriage” at the expense of society’s greater good in several states where the clear majority of voters support marriage as being a union between one man and one woman.
This proposed law must also be defeated.
Liberty Counsel Action is on the front lines of marriage’s defense.
This battle for traditional marriage and family has enormous national significance and a split in conservative opinion on marriage only encourages the homosexual community’s quest for full national recognition of same-sex “marriage.”
Tragically, we are seeing a trend within conservative ranks de-emphasizing the importance of defending marriage from the attacks of pro-homosexual activists. And pro-marriage initiatives appear to be declining at the very time they are most desperately needed!
Some conservative leaders are either avoiding the issue or are actively diminishing the role of the marriage issue in 2012’s campaigns. There are even suggestions that natural marriage may not get much support at all in 2012’s conservative party platforms.
This retreat is totally unacceptable! If marriage loses, we all lose!
The Honorable Ken Blackwell, a Visiting Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law and highly respected political commentator, recently said it this way:
“Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The fundamental institution of human civilization should be preserved as it has been known through the entirety of American history and Western civilization.”
Respected conservative columnist Don Feder also weighed into this controversy:
“Surrender on gay marriage is surrender on marriage – which is surrender on the family and, ultimately, surrender on civilization. Unfortunately, many conservative intellectuals have lost sight of a crucial fact: American exceptionalism rests on three pillars – faith, family, and freedom. Remove any one, and the entire structure collapses.”
If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do? The fact is, you and I and other enlightened pro-family citizens are going to have to be the ones who come forward to defend natural marriage in America!
I urge you to take a moment to sign our Statement of Support upholding the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
We are calling on all of our friends and supporters to insist that President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice (DOJ), congressional leaders, and military leaders actively comply with and defend the Defense of Marriage Act! This duly-passed act of the United States Congress is the law of the land and will remain so until that status is changed due to a holding by the U.S. Supreme Court!
Click here to sign Statement of Support upholding the federal Defense of Marriage Act: http://www.lcaction.cc/656/petition.asp
As you know, we are also incensed that activist judges have ruled in favor of same-sex “marriage” at the expense of society’s greater good in several states where the clear majority of voters support marriage as being a union between one man and one woman.
This proposed law must also be defeated.
Liberty Counsel Action is on the front lines of marriage’s defense.
This battle for traditional marriage and family has enormous national significance and a split in conservative opinion on marriage only encourages the homosexual community’s quest for full national recognition of same-sex “marriage.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
