POTUS and TOTUS matching USB drives:

We are one day past the 100 day mark and already I am pondering the election in 2010 and it’s consequences.  (Truth be told I’ve been pondering it since Nov 5, 2008.) With the impending liberal majority in the Senate and the certain liberal majority in the House, with same-sex marriage making waves across the nation in more states, with no end to our child killing policies in sight, and with our private sector becoming more nationalized one private company at a time, I find myself wondering how I will feel if we loose in 2010.

Honestly, we can’t lose.  It’s too important and there are too many things riding on this election.  Look at the current administration’s lack of integrity that they bring to the table on issues, their savior-style spending habits that are bankrupting us, and their seeming derogatory view of America’s place in the world.  These are huge problems and we must bring enough of the country together to gain more republican seats in both the Senate and House.

But what if we don’t?  What if after the 2010 election we’ve not gained any new seats?  I don’t mean to sound too despondent, but I am not sure at that point how much faith I will have in the American public.  It’s already quivering a bit after having seen the first 100 days, knowing that the American people got duped in the last election by the convergence of the MSM and the liberals.  If we can’t gain any ground after what’s already happened to our country in just 100 days, then what will it take to wake the American people up?

I’ve heard both Mark Levin and Glenn Beck say that we conservatives out number the liberals in this country.  After a quick view at Rasmussen’s 100 day polling results, I’m still not sure.  But I hope they are right and that we can fight back this onslaught of leftist liberalism.

It’s time for a Swine Flu Public Service Announcement – from 1976!

Previous: Gay Rights vs. Religious Rights: Who is Right?

In the short time I was allowed to comment on the Daily Kos, I received the following response to one of my comments:

“But please understand that what you are doing is imposing your personal, RELIGIOUS morality on me, in a way that has absolutely no effect on YOU one way or the other.  My CIVIL marriage does not impinge on your RELIGIOUS rights in any way. But you are voting to deny ME civil rights because of your personal religion.”

I’ve heard this argument before as people defend the right of same-sex couples to be married and receive the recognition, rights and privileges of a legal marriage.  But this is simply not true.  In fact, it can have a great effect on many who disagree with same-sex marriage, to the point of civil penalties.  Let me explain.

For one, by legalizing same-sex marriage, you strip away parental rights within the public school system.  Here is an excerpt from Americans for Truth:

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

When same-sex marriage is legalized and taught in the public school system, what happens to the rights of those who disagree with it?  They are told not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  But many who disagree with it do so on the foundation of religious freedom upon which the Constitution upholds.  Should parents have the right to refuse teaching that goes against what they believe in their faith?  And if they are denied that refusal, will the state help pay for alternative schooling?  No, as that would cause an outcry over state sponsored discrimination.  So where does that leave someone who can’t afford private school yet won’t be afforded the opportunity to refuse controversial instruction?

But like parents who lose their rights, it also strips away the right of some businesses who operate based on religious convictions or who use their convictions when choosing how they run their business.  For example, a Photographer in New Mexico “was found guilty…of breaking state law for refusing to take pictures of a lesbian ceremony.”  This photographer had told the lesbian couple that she only photographed traditional weddings.  What about her rights?  Why shouldn’t she be able to choose who she photographs?  And further, why couldn’t the couple simply choose someone else to photograph their wedding?  Why would they want a photographer to photograph their wedding who disagrees with the nature of their union? She was fined almost $7,000 and is currently appealing the decision.

Another example of this is when Catholic Charities was sued for not allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children from their agency.  Instead of complying with state law requiring them to adopt children to same-sex couples, they chose to stop adopting children to any couple, abandoning their founding mission.  The difficult thing with this case is that they were performing a public service in finding children homes.  Because they felt so strongly about their faith, they chose to stop altogether.  They had been in the adoption business for over 100 years.

There are more examples, including that of a Methodist retreat center who lost their tax exempt status and also a University of Toledo associate vice president who was fired for writing a column called “Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective.”

The end result here is that when same-sex marriage is legalized, the state has a duty to enforce it, which strips away rights of those who disagree with it.  So for those who say that there are no ramifications for those who disagree with it, they are clearly wrong.  And as same-sex marriage becomes legalized in more states, we will read even more accounts of people being punished for their religious beliefs.  Call it what you will, but sexual orientation, in the mind of this author, is not the basis for discrimination.  But we’ll save that topic for a later date.

It is common knowledge that Nancy Pelosi believes that waterboarding is torture.  Last week she was actively urging Pres. Obama to create a truth commission investigating the use of waterboarding and other techniques that some define as torture.  Of course that was before it was made known (again) that she knew about the enhanced interrogation techniques back in 2002 and made no formal protest of any magnitude on the matter.

Now herein lies the ultimate dichotomy.  Let’s rewind back to 2004 when Pelosi issued the following on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban:

“When President Bush signed the so-called ‘Partial-Birth Abortion Ban’ into law, he became the first President in history to ban a safe and medically-accepted medical procedure. It was a deliberate attack on reproductive health care and a violation of women’s privacy and their right to make their own decisions.

“This misguided law puts women’s health in serious danger because it fails to contain an exception for what is best for the health of a woman, a principle that was established by the Supreme Court in Carhart v. Stenberg.

“Clearly, President Bush and politicians should not be making medical decisions. A woman, in consultation with her family, her doctor, and her clergy, is best qualified to make those decisions. Instead of banning medically-safe procedures, Congress should focus on providing a broad range of reproductive options for women, including family planning, contraception, and healthy childbearing.”

How is that Pelosi (and others I’m sure) can stand so passionately against the use of waterboarding (at least now) and yet condone one of the most brutal attrocities that existed in our society before President Bush banned it in 2003?  It is mind boggling to be quite honest.  And did you see the use of the word “safe” in her statement? Certainly she is not referring to the infant.

Waterboarding is done with such care as to not endanger the life of the prisoner (which is why it can be done over 83 times to the same prisoner), yet partial birth abortion is done…well, in an opposite manner to say the least.  And the point of waterboarding is to extract information that will SAVE lives – not destroy them.

For emphasis I am including this illustrated video created to demonstrate how one doctor performed partial birth abortions.  Even though it’s illustrated, it’s still DIFFICULT to watch so use  your own discretion.

I’ll never understand how one person can make such issue of techniques that never endanger the life of someone and yet pursue with such vigor the right to kill someone – except to call it political expediency.

This story is about 2 months old and after being reminded of it this morning, it got me thinking about what is really going on here.  I’ve already written about my belief that Obama isn’t going to support Israel in much the same way the U.S. has always supported them and with many friendly gestures to the Muslim world (not all bad mind you), this seems par for the course.  But let’s think about this a little.

Do you remember when Israel invaded the Gaza strip in January to stop the persistent rocket fire that endangered Israeli lives? Israel sent aid into the Gaza strip, stopping all attacks long enough to get it in there, and then re-engaging them once the aid had been delivered.  Honestly, who does this?  I thought it was quite a humanitarian effort that was done in part to appease many countries who weren’t responding well to the attack.  But I digress.  The aid was promptly stolen by Hamas and sold so that they could continue to fund their side of the operation, which left many Palestinians without the appropriate aid, whether it be medical or food rations.

So how is it that Pres. Obama can pledge to send $900 million to the Gaza strip and ensure that it doesn’t get in the hands of Hamas? They are the governing body that controls Gaza and will certainly have the ability to commandeer any resources or funds that enter the Gaza Strip.  We already know that they are maiming or killing those Palestinians who they deem political adversaries, so on what moral ground do we believe they stand on that would suggest that they will use these resources appropriately? And will there be any accountability for us to examine what actually happens to the funding?  My guess is no but I’d love to be wrong.

I am not ready to say that Pres. Obama is funding Hamas, however I don’t believe he is so naive that he believes that we can just send money to the Gaza strip, the UN, and NGO and it will magically be used for the purposes he has stated.  I think he is a very calculated and intelligent man, and his intention seems to be anti-Israel.  What other conclusion could I come to?

Here is a compilation video from 2 different occasions when Janeane Garofalo was on Countdown with Keith Olbercrackhead.  Also, for other responses to Garofalo recent comments, go to Hotair.com.

Enjoy.

Update: I listened to Unusable Signal tonight with John Zeigler and Tommy Christopher talking about John’s recent “arrest” at USC.  What a show.  I was pleased, however, to hear that Christopher feels that Garofalo is over the top with her latest characterizations of the Tea Parties. Admittedly, I also enjoyed the fact that several on the show felt that Keith Olbermann is doing less good for the liberal movement now than he used too (if he ever did…but I’ll let that one go.)

Update: Vimeo removed my account for uploading stuff off TV.  Oh wells.  I’ve replaced it with my Youtube version. We’ll see how long that lasts.

Update: It’s interesting to go look at some of the sites that either link back here or have the video from Youtube.  I thought this one was quite interesting.

Last night, April 17, 2009, Sarah Palin gave a wonderful speech at a pro-life dinner in Indiana.  She discussed her personal story of having Trig and how that has affected her life.  This is a great speech and thanks to CNN for capturing it.

I am scooping this from a post on the Bible prophecy site I read almost daily, in which he quotes from a book by John P. McTernan: God’s Final Warning to America.  You can purchase it on Amazon.

As you will quickly catch on, these verses and the excerpt from the book below deal with how God will judge those who go against His Word when dealing with Israel.

Gen. 12:3
“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.“

I lasted less than a week.  It wasn’t because I wanted it to end, but rather the difference of opinion isn’t welcomed by the left.  Well what did I expect? Honestly, I wasn’t sure.  I knew it was a hotbed for radical left wing thought, but hey, sometimes you never know how something’s going to go until you give something a try.  So, I signed up for the Daily Kos website 6 days ago and thought I’d see how welcome I’d be.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, the Daily Kos is a left wing blog that is quite popular.  So after my 24 hour waiting period, I was able to post comments.  My first valuable discussion came on a post titled “Conservatives Speak Out on Gay Marriage.”  Now I disagree with the premise that we should legalize gay marriage on several grounds, and I politely shared my thoughts.  There were soon alot of responses to my post.  I tried to keep up, answering mainly those who had something worthwhile to say, however I couldn’t answer them all during my lunch.  But it was a good discussion, and I felt like for the most part it went better than I had thought.

Then today I posted again in response to “Pew Poll: People Have Confidence In Obama, Not Republicans.”  Again I had a good discussion with mainly one person who disagreed with me, and then finally gave up.  Now I want to point out that I was quite civil in all of my exchanges.  Though I was accused of much, you can read my comments (in PDF form or on the Daily Kos) and see for yourself.  Btw, they are quite entertaining to read.

And this evening, I logged in again and found I was unable to post comments.  I did some research and found out that I had been banned by what I believe is the Kos community. I do wonder though, as only one of my comments (to my knowledge) were hid, and I believe that is a big part of being banned.  Either way, I’ve contacted the site to find out for sure and haven’t heard back yet.

So after 2 days of conservative thought, they couldn’t take it anymore.  Maybe now they can sympathize with Mark Levin.