I thought this was a very good article featured in USA TODAY. It basically talks about the common sense line between politics and religion. We don't need to drag all our religious convictions into every political event (especially to the exclusion of others)but then we don't need to treat religious and moral convictions as some sort of plague. I hope you enjoy.
---------------------------------------------
Column: 5 rules for faith and politics 2012
Watching the presidential candidates over the past several weeks has set our civic alarm bells ringing. Religion and politics can be a combustible mix. Admittedly, the separation of church and state does not mean the separation of God and government or of religion and politics. But we could use some constitutional rules of the road if America is to continue steering a path between theocracy on one side and hostility toward religion on the other.
Here are five guidelines for both politicians and religious leaders as we move forward into this election season.
1 It is never appropriate — explicitly or implicitly — to impose a religious test for public office. Nothing is more profoundly American than Article VI of our Constitution. "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Though Article VI only prohibits government from creating such tests, the principle should apply to both candidates and religious organizations. As Republican President Teddy Roosevelt observed during a period of intense anti-Catholic bigotry: "To impose such a test by popular vote is as bad as to impose it by law. To vote either for or against a man because of his creed is to impose upon him a religious test and is a clear violation of the spirit of the Constitution." Voters should evaluate candidates based on their policies, their values and their character but not on whether or how they choose to worship. Similarly, no candidates — or their supporters — should suggest that they deserve votes (or that their opponents do not) because of their religious beliefs or practices.
2 Religious leaders should refrain from using religious authority or threats to coerce the political decisions of American citizens or candidates. At their best, religious leaders serve as the moral goad or conscience of society. Think of Martin Luther King Jr. calling the nation to a higher and better way on civil rights. Yet there is an important distinction between being a prophet and a ruler. Religious leaders cross the line when they seek to coerce secular leaders or voters rather than convince them. Denying communion to candidates for their political views during a campaign is a case in point. Such public censure serves as a de facto endorsement of the opposing candidates. Even more disturbing is threatening to kick members out of their church if they vote wrong or the denial of communion to voters based upon how they vote. Democracy, and religious freedom, depend on voters being free to exercise their civic duty without fear of punishment or constraint.
3 Candidates should refrain from citing religion as the exclusive authority for their position on issues. Democracy requires the ability to test public policies in reasoned discourse in a free marketplace of ideas. If a candidate claims that his or her sole source of justification for a policy is God, how can that assertion be tested and debated? Religious motivation is to be expected and commended, but candidates and legislators must be able to offer a civic or secular purpose for any public policy they propose. The First Amendment demands as much, and the Supreme Court has ruled accordingly. If a candidate asserts a religious reason for a policy, questions about the role faith plays in shaping his or her decisions are fair game.
4 Politicians should try to be inclusive of all citizens when — in their public capacity — they choose to speak religiously. Lincoln spoke of "the almighty," Jefferson of "the creator" and Washington of "divine providence." Such attempts at speaking inclusively when speaking religiously are helpful — rather than divisive — to the body politic. Yes, nearly all religions have some exclusive aspect to non-believers or different believers, but public officials can speak so that their moral power and imagery unite rather than divide. This does not mean that references to Jesus are per se inappropriate. Take George Bush's famous response to a debate moderator's question about the most influential political philosopher in his life. When candidate Bush responded, "Christ, because he changed my heart," the critics howled. Yet the candidate's response was honest, appropriate and revealed something significant about his values and political views. In short, there was nothing out of bounds for our former president to cite Jesus as the most important influence on his politics. It was up to voters to decide whether candidate Bush lived up to such high ethical standards.
5 Religious organizations have the constitutional freedom — and we would argue moral duty— to speak out on the great issues that confront our nation, but as tax-exempt entities they should never endorse or oppose candidates for public office. Partisan political activity by religious organizations amounts to an end run around campaign-finance laws by allowing tax-deductible contributions to subsidize political campaigns. It's not just that such endorsements violate federal tax and campaign laws; there is something deeply problematic from a religious perspective. Cloaking any candidate or political party in the divine mantle is certain to disappoint. Candidates are, after all, human. Identifying a candidate or political party with God compromises our moral standards, disillusions our members and diminishes our prophetic voice. Accordingly, candidates and their campaign staffs should respect the sacred space of churches and never seek to organize partisan support through houses of worship. While religious organizations should refrain from partisan political activity, clergy have every right to endorse or oppose candidates in their individual capacities. Many clergy — including one of us — have actually sought and served in public office, and most Congresses have had clergy who served honorably and effectively in one or both chambers.
There is a religious, as well as civic, principle at stake here. It is the third of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Most Americans think it's as simple as not saying the words "g-- d---," but they are wrong. The heart of the commandment is about using religion for personal gain.
Such as votes.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-23/religion-politics-faith-elections/50883610/1
October 28, 2011
October 24, 2011
Double Take
"President Obama says his new jobs bill will create over 1.9 million jobs -- and up to 50 of them will be right here in America." --comedian Jay Leno
"Politicians say they create jobs, but they really don't. Or rather, they rarely create productive jobs. Government has no money of its own. All it does is take resources from one group and give them to another. The pharaohs might have claimed they created work when they ordered that pyramids be built, but think how much richer (and freer) the Egyptians would have been if they'd been allowed to pursue their own interests." -John Stossel
"If I Don't Have This Done In Three Years, Then There's Going To Be A One-Term Proposition." -Pres. Barack Obama
So, recently I have become aware of President Obama pushing for a new bill or plan to create more jobs. . . now I'm no political expert but didn't we just spend a few billion dollars not to long ago that was going to stem the tide of unemployment and create thousands of jobs? Who was pushing that? How much did it cost? It didn't work, apparently, and now he wants We the People to support him in spending more of our money to create the jobs he couldn't create (which, as the Executive branch of the government he can't technically do anyway) with billions of dollars?
"Politicians say they create jobs, but they really don't. Or rather, they rarely create productive jobs. Government has no money of its own. All it does is take resources from one group and give them to another. The pharaohs might have claimed they created work when they ordered that pyramids be built, but think how much richer (and freer) the Egyptians would have been if they'd been allowed to pursue their own interests." -John Stossel
"If I Don't Have This Done In Three Years, Then There's Going To Be A One-Term Proposition." -Pres. Barack Obama
So, recently I have become aware of President Obama pushing for a new bill or plan to create more jobs. . . now I'm no political expert but didn't we just spend a few billion dollars not to long ago that was going to stem the tide of unemployment and create thousands of jobs? Who was pushing that? How much did it cost? It didn't work, apparently, and now he wants We the People to support him in spending more of our money to create the jobs he couldn't create (which, as the Executive branch of the government he can't technically do anyway) with billions of dollars?
June 10, 2011
Political Dismay
I was thinking today about all the recent controversy in the political arena. It seems to me that Candidates are dismissed in 3 ways by the media. The first is that, if they are moral, they are too religious and will be a fanatic or governed by their beliefs rather than . . .I'm not sure what they want politicians to govern by other than moral beliefs. The second way politicians are dismissed is that if they are not moral, the media dredges the very worst of their past or exaggerates a mistake and shows what a horrible person the politician is. The third way is that they express the view that the politician does not have enough experience and hence is not worth a thought.
Between all these we have no one to lead us. Much of the time the immoral or corrupt ones really are which is very sad but we have no one to look up to, no one to trust.
Who will lead us?
Between all these we have no one to lead us. Much of the time the immoral or corrupt ones really are which is very sad but we have no one to look up to, no one to trust.
Who will lead us?
February 28, 2011
Wisconsin Unions
This was written by a family friend who is a union member in Wisconsin. It is worth a read and a minute of contemplation.
-----------
It might seem as though citizens are rising up against the government in Wisconsin where unions are fighting for their lives. They say the whole middle class is under siege. The truth is, union membership in this country is just under 12% of the work force. There are 7.6 million union workers in the public sector, including City, State and Federal workers, and 7.1 million in the private sector, so they hardly represent the whole middle class. In fact, we the tax payers pay for public sector workers' salaries and benefits, and the bulk of their union dues go to the DNC to get pro-union democrats elected. The most controversial part of the bill in Wisconsin would be to remove the unions' right to negotiate on those pensions and health care, and while they would be allowed to continue negotiation on wages, the bill would end the automatic deduction of union dues from pay and enforce the annual election of union officials. This would mean a whole lot less tax payer money going to the democrats to pay for political campaigns. Unions contributed nearly half a billion dollars to put democrats in office in 2008. $87 million went to the Obama campaign alone. As a vested union member, that pisses me off.
Democrats outspent republicans in the 2008 presidential race, and yet we’re still being told that the Republican Party is the party of the rich, and that republicans are greedy racists. If we look at liberals and conservatives metaphorically, liberals would be the children and conservatives the adults. The issue in 2011 is fiscal responsibility, and public workers are going to have to grow up and face reality that their exceptional pensions and benefits are out of line with what the rest of America is getting, and they’re financially breaking State and Local governments. Collective bargaining in the private sector has steadily lost power and influence as employers have held out for more reasonable employee contributions to retirement and medical benefits. With unemployment at well over 9%, workers have less leverage and strikes garner little sympathy from the general public. The idea that union contracts guarantee “weekends, 40 hour work weeks and protection against child labor” is inane. Although unions were instrumental in getting laws passed to provide these and other rights to workers, they are State and Federal labor laws separate from collective bargaining contracts. They’ve become “social norms” and pertain to all workers, whether they’re union or not.
Interesting that in Wisconsin teachers walked shoulder to shoulder with socialists and communists. There were communist party members handing out literature at the demonstrations. Teachers ought to feel a bit hijacked by groups that are using them to further their own agenda. Come on people, what the hell are you doing? You’re Americans, remember? You’re free. Why are you allowing yourselves to be used this way? How much of a Gumby have you allowed yourselves to become? Teachers, you’ve allowed your unions to run amok, gradually draining the public coffers. Your passive, and sometimes aggressive acceptance of union demands on your behalf has very likely put at risk your chance for collective bargaining in the future. And it certainly hasn’t helped your public image.
Education is a hot button issue and teachers are taking the heat, to some degree unfairly, for low test scores and a general state of mediocrity in schools. It seems unwise for them to do anything but focus on quality education for our kids, but their unions have one goal and one goal only, and that is to collect revenue from union members and use it to finance politicians who will keep the unions in power. It’s just another left wing minority power grab. The difference this time is that they have a close ally in the White House.
-----------
It might seem as though citizens are rising up against the government in Wisconsin where unions are fighting for their lives. They say the whole middle class is under siege. The truth is, union membership in this country is just under 12% of the work force. There are 7.6 million union workers in the public sector, including City, State and Federal workers, and 7.1 million in the private sector, so they hardly represent the whole middle class. In fact, we the tax payers pay for public sector workers' salaries and benefits, and the bulk of their union dues go to the DNC to get pro-union democrats elected. The most controversial part of the bill in Wisconsin would be to remove the unions' right to negotiate on those pensions and health care, and while they would be allowed to continue negotiation on wages, the bill would end the automatic deduction of union dues from pay and enforce the annual election of union officials. This would mean a whole lot less tax payer money going to the democrats to pay for political campaigns. Unions contributed nearly half a billion dollars to put democrats in office in 2008. $87 million went to the Obama campaign alone. As a vested union member, that pisses me off.
Democrats outspent republicans in the 2008 presidential race, and yet we’re still being told that the Republican Party is the party of the rich, and that republicans are greedy racists. If we look at liberals and conservatives metaphorically, liberals would be the children and conservatives the adults. The issue in 2011 is fiscal responsibility, and public workers are going to have to grow up and face reality that their exceptional pensions and benefits are out of line with what the rest of America is getting, and they’re financially breaking State and Local governments. Collective bargaining in the private sector has steadily lost power and influence as employers have held out for more reasonable employee contributions to retirement and medical benefits. With unemployment at well over 9%, workers have less leverage and strikes garner little sympathy from the general public. The idea that union contracts guarantee “weekends, 40 hour work weeks and protection against child labor” is inane. Although unions were instrumental in getting laws passed to provide these and other rights to workers, they are State and Federal labor laws separate from collective bargaining contracts. They’ve become “social norms” and pertain to all workers, whether they’re union or not.
Interesting that in Wisconsin teachers walked shoulder to shoulder with socialists and communists. There were communist party members handing out literature at the demonstrations. Teachers ought to feel a bit hijacked by groups that are using them to further their own agenda. Come on people, what the hell are you doing? You’re Americans, remember? You’re free. Why are you allowing yourselves to be used this way? How much of a Gumby have you allowed yourselves to become? Teachers, you’ve allowed your unions to run amok, gradually draining the public coffers. Your passive, and sometimes aggressive acceptance of union demands on your behalf has very likely put at risk your chance for collective bargaining in the future. And it certainly hasn’t helped your public image.
Education is a hot button issue and teachers are taking the heat, to some degree unfairly, for low test scores and a general state of mediocrity in schools. It seems unwise for them to do anything but focus on quality education for our kids, but their unions have one goal and one goal only, and that is to collect revenue from union members and use it to finance politicians who will keep the unions in power. It’s just another left wing minority power grab. The difference this time is that they have a close ally in the White House.
October 08, 2010
Being American
I was watching the film "Glory" the other night. It is a film about, in essence, how white America had to learn to love the people they had brought here to abuse. A film about how those who had been wronged every day of their own lives had to step up, forgive and dare to live. The white man had to be humble and brave enough to give the black man a chance to be a man and then the black man had to be resolute enough to take one more step, their own step.
I thought how this nation's people have not been inextricably tied to the land from the dawn of time. We are a nation of pioneers seeking life and liberty. We have, since the first groups of settlers, been joined by other groups of people in this new nation either through their own fruition or through the tragedy of crimes. We all have the necessity of learning to live together and we all have inherited the destiny, right and responsibility to work hard for our future; to take responsibility for our own situation and to make it better and, when occasion permits, show charity to those around us.
In order to facilitate this American destiny and gain our independence many people fought and died and others have fought again and again to maintain our freedoms. The best minds at the dawn of our country took what was true and right and devised a way that through the responsibility and work of the people we might maintain our liberties and work out or problems together. They sacrificed that we might maintain our destinies and not give control of our lives to others.
In this day we see our country in crisis. First, a crisis of information overload. We are so bombarded by information we get lost in it, numb to it or obsessed with it. We want to belong and we want to build but we have no structure around us so we look to media, substance, and material for solace; occasionally to sin and vice. But these leave us unfulfilled and bitter. Meanwhile, through our consumerism, we have lost our community and our feeling of connection to the towns, states and the country we have built.
Another great crisis that we face is that some people, in the name of "progress", are changing our country. They say that the moral base that this country was founded on is out of date, old-fashioned or unfair. They more and more seek special privilege for the few in the name of equal rights while at the same time chipping away at the structure of government that was made to protect us all as well as possible.
They try to lead us to believe that the truths on which we founded our freedoms are arbitrary and no longer apply. How can moral truth change? Do humans change? In small ways perhaps but the human soul has loved, despaired, hungered, hated, hoped and desired the same way since the first man walked. Right has been, is and will always be right. No matter how much we want to justify, bend or color our wrongs and injustices they will always be wrong. We can follow any road we want but they do not all lead to where we want to go. Even if every person votes that wrong is right; right is still right.
So the time has come. We can no longer sit and talk of glory and sings songs of the bravery of days gone by. We need to kick in and anti up. We need stop pretending that the world owes us a living and realize we owe the world our lives. We need to stop living in the thick of thin things. We need to stop wallowing in the fleeting pleasure of petty things and seek the joy of accomplishment. We need to stop stealing a future of plenty and possibility from our children and we need to take responsibility for our tomorrow. We need to vote, work, plant, repair, talk, share, teach and most importantly we need to be the example we want our children and those around us to have. We need to remember those before us who were humble and brave enough to take the first step and now we need to take then next step, our own step. We, the people, must take a moment each day, stare our responsibility in the face and go do our best. We need to gratefully live the gift, the right and the responsibility that is being American.
October 01, 2010
Tea?
So I have read and heard a number of people lately who have attributed the Tea party supporters to different groups; radical and otherwise. I even read in a university newspaper how the president of their Republican club claimed the Tea party as part of or a sub set of the Republican party.
I blame the media mostly. The Tea party is a mercurial group of citizens who are finally fed up with government (INCLUDING the Democratic and Republican political parties) for one or more reasons . The Tea party includes young and old, conservative and liberal. It consists of the people who realize that our country is very quickly moving away from the values and strengths that have sustained it from the beginning. The Tea party wants Federal Government to be smaller, State Government to be more effective, politicians to be more responsible and citizens to be more informed and proactive.
I highly recommend we, the people listen more closely to those who speak out from the Tea party: it is the movement that has the best chance of saving these United States. The only thing you would betray by supporting this movement would be those people and ideas that would destroy this country and all she stands for.
I blame the media mostly. The Tea party is a mercurial group of citizens who are finally fed up with government (INCLUDING the Democratic and Republican political parties) for one or more reasons . The Tea party includes young and old, conservative and liberal. It consists of the people who realize that our country is very quickly moving away from the values and strengths that have sustained it from the beginning. The Tea party wants Federal Government to be smaller, State Government to be more effective, politicians to be more responsible and citizens to be more informed and proactive.
I highly recommend we, the people listen more closely to those who speak out from the Tea party: it is the movement that has the best chance of saving these United States. The only thing you would betray by supporting this movement would be those people and ideas that would destroy this country and all she stands for.
March 27, 2010
Today's Heartburn
Recently, I get the feeling that a MAJORITY of Americans are very displeased with the Democrat Congress, Obama, "Obamacare" and the federal government in general. This feeling is based on radio, friends and neighbors, tv and national polls. So, if the government is so bad, why doesn't it change?
If all those who are conservative, love the constitution, their families, and their responsible freedom voted for the right thing, the thing that is dictated by honor and right, I think the government would change. Part of the reason it does not change is that many of we, the people, are lazy and/or uninformed and don't make the change. I think, however, that a bigger part of the problem is that we fear "public" perception. We fear that if we vote for right that we will seem antiquated or stubborn, or closed minded. So, we try to have an open mind and we consume some of the tripe that the general media dishes out and we vote for "progress" or liberality in a hopes that we will feel the exciting rush of change. Meanwhile we have sold a piece of our freedom, our citizenship; maybe not a large part but an important part and all those small pieces add up to us losing our freedom. We are loosing our freedom to be honorable, our freedom to be self responsible, to have a community, to work towards our goals.
I guess what I am saying is that each and every one of us needs to stand completely for what is right, for what is just and for what is good; even if it is not convenient or popular. We need to stand in what we do, what we say, and how we live; even at the cost of time, popularity or effort. This country was not built by those who sat around and waited for others to build them up. Nor was it built by those who desired to control others; it was built by those searching for freedom and right.
If all those who are conservative, love the constitution, their families, and their responsible freedom voted for the right thing, the thing that is dictated by honor and right, I think the government would change. Part of the reason it does not change is that many of we, the people, are lazy and/or uninformed and don't make the change. I think, however, that a bigger part of the problem is that we fear "public" perception. We fear that if we vote for right that we will seem antiquated or stubborn, or closed minded. So, we try to have an open mind and we consume some of the tripe that the general media dishes out and we vote for "progress" or liberality in a hopes that we will feel the exciting rush of change. Meanwhile we have sold a piece of our freedom, our citizenship; maybe not a large part but an important part and all those small pieces add up to us losing our freedom. We are loosing our freedom to be honorable, our freedom to be self responsible, to have a community, to work towards our goals.
I guess what I am saying is that each and every one of us needs to stand completely for what is right, for what is just and for what is good; even if it is not convenient or popular. We need to stand in what we do, what we say, and how we live; even at the cost of time, popularity or effort. This country was not built by those who sat around and waited for others to build them up. Nor was it built by those who desired to control others; it was built by those searching for freedom and right.
October 12, 2009
Thoughts for the Day
From Wolfshield:
===============================
"As the president's approval ratings fall and rise and fall again, some of his supporters in journalism and politics are returning to days of old when the label 'racist' could end any discussion and force the accused either into stunned silence, or groveling repentance. I suspect the tactic won't work this time because Obama supporters will have difficulty explaining how a mostly white country could elect a black man president last November and ten months later become a racist majority. . . . With Democrats controlling all three branches of government, including significantly wide margins in Congress, isn't there a better explanation than racism for why the president is having difficulty with some of his proposals? . . . There is a better explanation for the growing opposition to President Obama. It has less to do with his ethnicity than it does his credibility. Character, after all, is colorless." --columnist Cal Thomas
"I traveled on the Tea Party Express tour bus as a singer/songwriter, entertainer and spokesperson; 16 states, 34 rallies in two weeks. I experienced vicious racial verbal attacks, not from the tea party protesters. The racial hate expressed against me all came from the left, people who support President Obama's radial socialist agenda. ... These racists are outraged by my opening lines I boldly proclaimed at each rally. 'Hello my fellow patriots! I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!' . . . Liberals' response to my YouTube videos, columns and performances on the Tea Party Express have been extremely racist, vicious and hate-filled. In their incredible arrogance, they vilify me for loving my country and not viewing myself as a victim of white America. In the sick minds of liberals, as a black man in America, I must support President Obama regardless of his policies. I must resent white America. I must feel entitled to the earnings of other Americans. My belief that my success or failure is totally in the hands of myself and my God is anathema to them. As to the claim that the tea party protesters are racist, they are not. Quite the opposite. At every rally, with thousands in attendance, I was overwhelmingly showered with affection and thanks for standing up for America. ... These protesters are not racist. They are decent hard working ordinary Americans who love their country and disapprove of the radical changes planned by the Obama administration." --singer, songwriter and columnist Lloyd Marcus
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi berated town hall and tea party protesters this month, tearfully warning they'd incite violence. Well, there's been violence all right, at Pittsburgh's G-20. But it wasn't the tea partiers. It takes gall to characterize ordinary Americans, freely exercising their rights of speech and assembly in civic forums, as 'mobs' while ignoring a pack of leftist thugs now smashing a U.S. city. But that's what Pelosi did, directing her righteous tocsin to the Norman Rockwell-like gatherings of Americans who opposed her expansion of government this past summer. . . . Scroll ahead one week to the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh: Some 1,000 hooded rioters descend on the city waving signs such as 'Smash the G-20' and 'Eat the Rich.' Many take 'direct action' to 'challenge capitalism' in what organizers brazenly call an 'unpermitted protest.' Unlike the town hall citizens, they didn't 'hurl' statements -- just tire irons, bricks and rocks, in an effort to damage private businesses. . . . This kind of violence is nothing new. . . . The unwillingness of the Democratic establishment to defend free markets emboldens the rioters. In destroying private property and impeding trade, these anarchists prove their aims aren't democratic. . . . The outrage of it all raises questions about Pelosi's real agenda in her one-sided criticism of tea partiers. By criticizing only tea partiers and ignoring rampant thugs, she seeks to repress peaceful dissent. With that setup, it's no surprise that there's a mudslide of violence now rolling down on us from an energized radical left." --/Investors' Business Daily/
"We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin. Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let's act and talk like it. The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when? Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people." --Ronald Reagan
Obama Seeks to Strike Down the Defense of Marriage Act:
"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State." --So-called Respect for Marriage Act, HR 3567
"[T]he Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law." --Pres. Barack H. Obama
"With a president who is committed to repaling DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law." --Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, co-sponsor of HR 3567
"Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship. There's more to a marriage than that. A decisive majority of Americans believe this, and they are tired of being treated with contempt by politicians. . . . Many of those in favor of this bill argue that the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is not intended to force same-sex 'marriage' on all the states. If that is not the intent, its supporters wouldn't be seeking to repeal the section of DOMA that makes it clear that states have a right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman." --ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) Senior Counsel Brian Raum
===============================
"As the president's approval ratings fall and rise and fall again, some of his supporters in journalism and politics are returning to days of old when the label 'racist' could end any discussion and force the accused either into stunned silence, or groveling repentance. I suspect the tactic won't work this time because Obama supporters will have difficulty explaining how a mostly white country could elect a black man president last November and ten months later become a racist majority. . . . With Democrats controlling all three branches of government, including significantly wide margins in Congress, isn't there a better explanation than racism for why the president is having difficulty with some of his proposals? . . . There is a better explanation for the growing opposition to President Obama. It has less to do with his ethnicity than it does his credibility. Character, after all, is colorless." --columnist Cal Thomas
"I traveled on the Tea Party Express tour bus as a singer/songwriter, entertainer and spokesperson; 16 states, 34 rallies in two weeks. I experienced vicious racial verbal attacks, not from the tea party protesters. The racial hate expressed against me all came from the left, people who support President Obama's radial socialist agenda. ... These racists are outraged by my opening lines I boldly proclaimed at each rally. 'Hello my fellow patriots! I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!' . . . Liberals' response to my YouTube videos, columns and performances on the Tea Party Express have been extremely racist, vicious and hate-filled. In their incredible arrogance, they vilify me for loving my country and not viewing myself as a victim of white America. In the sick minds of liberals, as a black man in America, I must support President Obama regardless of his policies. I must resent white America. I must feel entitled to the earnings of other Americans. My belief that my success or failure is totally in the hands of myself and my God is anathema to them. As to the claim that the tea party protesters are racist, they are not. Quite the opposite. At every rally, with thousands in attendance, I was overwhelmingly showered with affection and thanks for standing up for America. ... These protesters are not racist. They are decent hard working ordinary Americans who love their country and disapprove of the radical changes planned by the Obama administration." --singer, songwriter and columnist Lloyd Marcus
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi berated town hall and tea party protesters this month, tearfully warning they'd incite violence. Well, there's been violence all right, at Pittsburgh's G-20. But it wasn't the tea partiers. It takes gall to characterize ordinary Americans, freely exercising their rights of speech and assembly in civic forums, as 'mobs' while ignoring a pack of leftist thugs now smashing a U.S. city. But that's what Pelosi did, directing her righteous tocsin to the Norman Rockwell-like gatherings of Americans who opposed her expansion of government this past summer. . . . Scroll ahead one week to the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh: Some 1,000 hooded rioters descend on the city waving signs such as 'Smash the G-20' and 'Eat the Rich.' Many take 'direct action' to 'challenge capitalism' in what organizers brazenly call an 'unpermitted protest.' Unlike the town hall citizens, they didn't 'hurl' statements -- just tire irons, bricks and rocks, in an effort to damage private businesses. . . . This kind of violence is nothing new. . . . The unwillingness of the Democratic establishment to defend free markets emboldens the rioters. In destroying private property and impeding trade, these anarchists prove their aims aren't democratic. . . . The outrage of it all raises questions about Pelosi's real agenda in her one-sided criticism of tea partiers. By criticizing only tea partiers and ignoring rampant thugs, she seeks to repress peaceful dissent. With that setup, it's no surprise that there's a mudslide of violence now rolling down on us from an energized radical left." --/Investors' Business Daily/
"We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin. Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let's act and talk like it. The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when? Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people." --Ronald Reagan
Obama Seeks to Strike Down the Defense of Marriage Act:
"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State." --So-called Respect for Marriage Act, HR 3567
"[T]he Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law." --Pres. Barack H. Obama
"With a president who is committed to repaling DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law." --Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, co-sponsor of HR 3567
"Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship. There's more to a marriage than that. A decisive majority of Americans believe this, and they are tired of being treated with contempt by politicians. . . . Many of those in favor of this bill argue that the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is not intended to force same-sex 'marriage' on all the states. If that is not the intent, its supporters wouldn't be seeking to repeal the section of DOMA that makes it clear that states have a right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman." --ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) Senior Counsel Brian Raum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)