Bush Victory?

Dick Morris seems to think Bush will have a relatively easy time stomping Kerry come November.

This Democrat is not ready to run for president, and the more the Republicans press him, the more he will self-destruct. His campaign advisers are hoping that a few hours extra sleep on his ski trip will restore his political judgment, but they ignore the fact that he never had a lot to begin with.

Iraq Then vs. Iraq Now

Take a look at the differences one year can make when a brutal dictator is removed.

Out of the Donkey's Mouth

"Senator Kerry has been in the Senate for a long time. And during his tenure, he's introduced 500 pieces of legislation, seven of which have been adopted. Two or three of those concerned renaming bridges. A couple involved research grants. And a couple were giveaway programs, small loans.... But, he has voted against virtually every defense weapons system bill that's come down the pike." --Sen. Zell Miller

Change the Judges, not the Constitution

Great article for your perusal by George C. Landrith for Frontiers for Freedom. Landrith argues that a Federal Marriage Amendment is "like trying to fix a leaky roof by repairing the foundation" and instead argues that the problem lies with activist judges.

Landrith writes:

Problems are best solved by addressing their real cause. In this case, the cause is rogue judges who violate their oath of office and demean our representative democracy. Judges who violate their oath of office and lay siege to the Constitution should be removed from office.

George Washington and his army of patriots fought against all odds to free Americans from the oppression of an unelected, life-tenured king and an out-of-control parliament. They did not make these sacrifices so that 200 years later a group of life-tenured and out-of-control judges could crown themselves our despotic rulers.

Same-Sex Marriage Comes With Consequences

Kevin McCullough for World Net Daily raises interesting points about the same sex marriage debate.

Beyond Stage One posts a clever hypothetical dialogue that might occur in a city hall if gay marriage becomes a reality.

Democrats against the Flag

Antioch Road notices an interesting phenomenon in Georgia. Democrats there apparently don't want flags on license plates because the flags might be associated with George Bush. Thus they are admitting that Republicans are patriotic and Democrats aren't. They make campaigning rather easy for the Republicans.

Bush Administration Considers Condom Warning Labels

Finally, an adult authority willing to be honest with misled youngsters about the real protection condoms offer. As I've stated before, condoms do not protect against all STD's. In particular, condoms do not prevent the transfer of HPV, the virus largely responsible for the high number of cervical cancers each year. According to Dr. Ed Thompson, deputy director for public health services at the Centers for Disease Control, more than 2 million American women are infected with HPV each year, ten thousand women are diagnosed annually with cervical cancer, and 4,000 die as a result.

Yet Democrats don't want people to know the truth about these deadly statistics. Rather, Congressmen such as Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, want the public to remain in ignorance so that they don't abandon condom use altogether. Waxman is quoted as saying, "Anything that undermines the effectiveness of condoms for these uses will have serious public health consequences. Are condoms perfect? Of course not. But reality requires us not to make a public health strategy against protection, but rather to ask a key question: compared to what?"

Heaven forbid someone decline sex with an infected person! What if these people decide not to have sex afterall? Oh, no! That would mean those wacky conservative Christians might actually have a case against sex outside of marriage.
This, of course, is bad news for leftists whose platform relies almost completely on the premise that mankind should be free to act out animalistic impulses, arguing that sexual promiscuity is an unquestionable, irrevocable right.

I also find it interesting that HPV affects women primarily, with cervical cancer, and HIV is most prominent in gay men, leading to AIDS. The leftists don't want women to know about their possibility of getting cervical cancer, but they want gay men to use condoms so they don't get HIV. Sounds like some prejudice is going on to me.

Not that it matters. There is no safe sex, and leftists are only encouraging a deadly game of russian "STD" roulette when they advocate anything but abstinence for young people.

Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va responds to leftist criticism: "This is not about social ideology, or religious ideology. It's about informing women. ... And truly, the only way to be protected is abstinence. That's not ideology — it's fact."

Politics and Religion Should and Do Mix

Scott Tibbs comments on the meaning of the First Amendment's misinterpreted 'separation of church and state'. (I realize that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is not in the Constitution, but unfortunately that is what many think of when they think of the First Amendment's freedom from establishment clause.)

One More Victory for Smut

According to the Associated Press: "A videotape of an underage girl exposing her breasts is not child pornography, a judge decided Tuesday in a criminal case against the producer of the "Girls Gone Wild" video series."

The fact that girls go to these shootings and willingly expose themselves is testimony that our culture is debased. Yet when a court finds that middle-aged men shooting videos of bared underage girls is not child pornography, we know our country is nearing Sodom and Gomorrah status.

Not like we didn't know that from what's going on in San Fransisco, huh? For more disturbing evidence our country is in a troubling moral decline, read more about Gene Robinson and his desire to "marry" his partner.

Quote of the Week:

Okay, I realize I don't do this every week. So sue me. No pun intended. :)

"Psychologically in America in the past 10 years, we have become so lawsuit driven that it has seeped into the mind-set of an entire generation that anything can be made the problem of anyone else except yourself. We are becoming a nation of blaming, rejecting personal responsibility and lacking common sense." --Terra Wellington, host of a Phoenix-based national TV series on balanced living, as quoted in the Christian Science Monitor.

Love is Unselfish

As a respite from culture and political postings, here is a piece on being a better partner--as a friend or spouse. We could all use a lesson on being more unselfish, couldn't we? This man was deeply impacted by Jesus' phrase: "Give and it shall be given unto you."

State-Controlled Religion Coming to a Church Near You

This is bad news for religious freedom. First we are told there must be no religion in the public domain whatsoever. Now we are told that the government has the power to control church membership. I guess when mayors can flagrantly disregard state law, courts can flagrantly disregard the First Amendment's protection of the church from state intrusion.

Homosexual Marriage Not a Civil Rights Issue

This article compares yesterday's civil rights movement with today's homosexual marriage agenda and finds important differences.

But if anything has [Martin Luther] King spinning in his grave, it is the indecency of exploiting his name for a cause he never supported. The civil rights movement for which he lived and died was grounded in a fundamental truth: All God's children are created equal. The same-sex marriage movement, by contrast, is grounded in the denial of a fundamental truth: The Creator who made us equal made us male and female. That duality has always and everywhere been the starting point for marriage. To claim that marriage can ignore that duality is akin to the claim, back when lunch counters were segregated, that America was a land of liberty and justice for all.

Hmmmm....

Secular Reporting on Homosexual Marriage

Mark Sappenfield of the Christian Science Monitor reports about gay marriage:

Yet Brodie [a lesbian who just "married" her partner in San Francisco] acknowledges that the word [marriage] "doesn't mean anything" other than equality. To opponents of same-sex marriage, however, it has a deep and personal meaning beyond the halls of government. It's cultural shorthand for a set of moral values and the conviction that the union of one man and one woman is the basic building block of society.

This dual meaning of the legal and the moral is what make the argument about the purpose of marriage so contentious. "It's unique in that it's very much a public institution, but at the same time it's a private institution," says Nancy Cott, author of "Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation." "I don't think anything else combines these two in this way."

The concern among many who are opposed to same-sex marriages is that the traditional cultural resonances of marriage are dissipating. They see the Massachusetts Senate's effort to keep the word marriage just for heterosexual couples - even while conceding away its benefits - as a last-ditch effort to save the institution.

Polygamists are Gays' New Allies

Copy and paste these websites to see how polygamists plan to join with gays in strategizing against Bush.

http://TruthBearer.us -- Polygamy members Area web-site
http://TruthBearer.com -- Products, Services, Donations
http://TruthBearer.net -- Your Polygamy WebServices
http://LoveNotForce.com -- How to Love Wives
http://Pro-Polygamy.com -- Informing the Media
http://Pro-Polygamy.NET -- Get Your Email Address
http://2Wives.com -- Polygamy Personal Ads
http://Anti-Polygamy.org -- Tapestry of Anti-Polygamy
http://BiblicalPolygamy.com -- Argument that Polygamy Is Biblical
http://ChristianPolygamy.INFO -- Source for INFO

The Enumerated Powers Amendment

To learn more about this amendment and then sign a petition for its promotion in Congress, read this.

The key part of the amendment's wording goes like this:

"provided that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate; and that no rights or obligations, requirements or restrictions, not expressly stated in this Constitution shall be implied or inferred, it being the intent of this article that any change to the express provisions of this Constitution shall be by amendment alone. Any United States Judicial Officers bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution, who imply or infer rights or obligations, requirements or restrictions, not expressly stated in this Constitution, shall be remanded to the Senate for impeachment.

I've maintained for awhile that there needs to be some check on the judicial branch. As it stands, these judges have free reign to rule any way they want. A Nero-like edict in the U.S. is not unthinkable. If a judge can rule that killing unborn babies is guaranteed by the Constitution, a judge could rule that anyone wearing purple socks should be exiled. There is no limit to what judiciaries rule is law and lately we've seen some pretty silly extrapolations of the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves.

North Korea for Kerry

Apparently, Kerry has earned the favor of North Korea. The communist country seems to think Kerry will be soft on enforcing the U.S.' nuclear weapons policy, much like his Democrat predecessor, Bill Clinton.

PETA blasphemes God

These notorious fruitcakes just can't help themselves. Jealous of Gibson's success with the Passion, PETA decided to get in on the action. Read more in Scott Tibb's post.

Anger over 9/11

Bush was the best chief commander we could have had when 9/11 was forced upon us. Some however, don't think he should be able to take credit for his remarkable leadership because people died in the tragedy.

Yes, they did, and Bush acted quickly in such a way that he prevented more deaths from occuring. He should put 9/11 images in all of his ads--he deserves recognition and should be commended for how he handled this horrible tragedy. Let us compare how Kerry might have handled 9/11. Shudder.

Suggestions for Bush

He's not my favorite political strategist, but his opinion on how Bush can defeat Kerry is worth reading.

Gay marriage

Group rights have little clout in my book. My belief is that all Americans are given a basic set of rights and no one can amass more "rights" than another. Yet this does not mean that all behavior is permissible in the U.S. No, we are wise enough to have rules of right and wrong passed in our legislature and up until lately, judges intent on preserving the rule of law.

While conservatives have been scrambling to find a comprehensive defense of marriage as between a man and a woman only, I would like to offer the following encouragement.

There is nothing wrong with speaking out against homosexuality. It is a deviant lifestyle. It is a chosen behavior. If we don't win that argument, we don't have much ground to stand upon and will look as if we are denying "rights" to the underpriviledged in society.

I adamantly oppose gay marriage, but my fury did not begin recently. What is more upsetting to me are the "rights" gays already had before they flocked to San Francisco to obtain marriage licenses. How many times have you seen a gay couple with children? If gay people have been allowed to adopt children in the U.S., why is it that they can't marry? Rather than allow them free access to marriage, I believe it's time we cut off adoption privileges.

It may not ever come about, but I contend that a fundamental change must occur in the public's perception of homosexuality. It is a deviant behavior and I maintain that it should be on the list of behavioral disorders. Until the council of American Psychiatrics (whatever their conglomerate name may be) deems homosexuality a disorder, however, denying homosexuals the privilege of adopting children and marrying will be an uphill battle, and one we are likely to lose in the long run.