Pages

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Federal judicial activism Defense of Marriage Act wreaks havoc in states

Defense of Marriage Act Bill
[Defense of Marriage Act Bill]
 
State judiciaries, legislatures, and governors are entangled in a horrific mess caused by the Supreme Court’s rulings striking down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and remanding California’s Proposition 8 back to the trial court. 
 
The state of marriage and family law nationwide is in horrible confusion and has become a huge problem to state administrations.  This devastation is what can be expected when pro-homosexual bullies force their will on society!
 
Thankfully, Americans who are concerned about the moral collapse in our nation are rising up and taking action by standing for marriage and family! We need every concerned patriot possible to join this historic effort!  Please see my very important message below – Mat.
 
 
Patriot, 
 
Legal battles to remove state laws protecting natural marriage are being fought all across our nation. In fact, pro-homosexual strategists have placed twelve states squarely in their crosshairs for “change” in 2014. 
 
For its part, the George Soros-funded Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has vowed to make “gay marriage” legal in all 50 states within five years.
 
++State legal systems are in upheaval.
 
Pennsylvania state law, for instance, defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and the Keystone State refuses to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states. 
 
Governor Tom Corbett has declared that he will enforce the state’s law until it is duly changed by the Pennsylvania legislature.  Attorney General Kathleen Kane, on the other hand, does not endorse the state’s law and this causes real confusion for Pennsylvania administrators. 
 
On Valentine’s Day, an activist judge appointed by President Barack Obama ruled against a Virginia law that affirms marriage as being reserved to the union of one man and one woman.  The target of the judge’s judicial activism was the Virginia Marriage Amendment, passed by a plurality of that state’s voters in 2006.
 
Liberty Counsel will file an amicus brief as the Virginia decision moves to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals!
The Supreme Court Overturns The Defense Of Marriage Act
 
Also last week, a judge in Kentucky ruled that the state must recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states.  
 
Similar scenarios of legal battles, some being won by natural marriage proponents and others by pro-homosexual forces, are being fought all across our nation. 
 
Liberty Counsel will fight the disastrous pro-homosexual agenda in federal and state legislatures, in federal and state courts, and in the court of public opinion!  
 
Already in 2014, the Liberty Counsel legal team is actively engaged in several lawsuits in states in which natural marriage laws are being threatened by organizations like the ACLU and Lambda Legal Defense Fund.
 
Just last week, Liberty Counsel filed two friend of the court briefs in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to uphold the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 
 
In Nevada, Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval asking the court to uphold the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The state attorney general, a Democrat, and its governor, a Republican, said they would no longer defend their state's same-sex marriage ban.
 
Last month, “Equality Florida” challenged the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, which was passed by the state’s voters and added to the State Constitution in 2008. Anita and I wrote the language for the amendment, so you may rest assured that Liberty Counsel is helping defend the law! 
 
Also, last month in Utah, a district court judge ruled that the state’s one man, one woman definition of marriage was unconstitutional. The court stayed the ruling pending appeal. Then, in a separate ruling last month, a federal judge ruled that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional!
 
We have warned of this slippery slope for years. 
 
If marriage is deconstructed to include people of the same sex, there is no logical or legal argument to ban polygamy or polyamory. Same-sex marriage is the abolition of marriage and will destroy the most basic foundation of family and civil society.
 
The epidemic failure rate among American marriages and families stems from the ongoing cultural, legal, and legislative attacks on family structure!  
 
++I promise you this… the Liberty Counsel legal team will never relent in the defense of natural marriage!  
 
Those of us who believe that marriage is a God-ordained union of one man and one woman, and who are willing to speak out and act on that belief, must fight back!  
 
Would you consider a special gift today to help Liberty Counsel in our ongoing efforts to defend natural marriage and the family? 
 
Go here now to support Liberty Counsel with a generous donation of any amount:    
 
 
There can be no middle ground in this fight. We have no choice but to win the battle in support of marriage and family.  Losing one of the most important cultural battles of our lifetime is simply unthinkable!
 
Redefining marriage is a line we cannot and will not cross! We need every friend possible to join this effort

Report: McCain, Rubio,Graham Got Fox News On Board For Immigration Reform

The Schumer-McCain-Graham-Rubio lovefest following the vote for ...
[The Schumer-McCain-Graham-Rubio lovefest]

oped: Well Bill Oreilly was always on board...Bill is a Liberal in RINO clothing as is John McCain,Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham [Obama enablers]...I certainly hope Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto see through this sham! All I have to say to the trio of Republicans in the so-called Gang of Eight READ: 
http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2014/02/congressthe-house-and-senate-are.html  

Bill O’Reilly Logic Sean Hannity: Florida bound? (Fox News Channel photo) 
                                                                             [Dazed look...lol]

Neil Cavuto Leaving Fox
[Dazed Look...lol]

by: Tom Kludt 
 

Congress~The House and Senate are enabling a Dictator...!

Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on U.S. citizens'
Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Davis Obama or whatever his real name is~is taking his Progressive Party down the same road Adolf Hitler took with his National Socialist Party {NAZI) as a matter of fact if one reads the history of the rise of the NAZI party one will see Obama is following step by step in exact concert with Hitlers game plan..!

SEE: Hitler and Germany: 1928-35 http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm 

Hitler Named Chancellor : http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/named.htm 

Not to forget the sick side of the Progressive/Nazi Party :
http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2013/08/revisiting-pink-swastika.html  

Also #Obamacare: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-nazi-euthanasia-program-forerunner.html

If congress fails to act and Impeach,arrest and prosecute Barack Hussein Obama for sedition and treason against the United States of America, it stands to reason that the people will revolt as intended by Obama giving him the power to declare Martial Law and suspend the Constitution and Bill of Rights giving himself total Dictorial Power...this is his intention as he has been under advisement/control by none other than George Soros...be warned congress your failure to act will become blood on your hands and this blood will apply to you as well, as the Dictator disbands the Congress and places all those who were not with him into concentration camps!








Summary

After he became Chancellor in January 1933, Hitler transformed his democratic position into dictatorial power.   Calling an election - and taking advantage of the Reichstag fire - he got the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act.   Then, using the power this gave him to make his own laws, he set up the Gestapo, banned Trade Unions and opposition parties and (on the Night of the Long Knives, July 1934) removed even the opposition within the Nazi Party.   
       When Hindenburg died, Hitler declared himself Fuhrer. 


Plan to split California into six states gains ground...!


... california, to, split, into, six, states., here's, why, he's, right
oped: I do believe Nevada should also split into N/Nevada and S/Nevada...Northern Nevada is mostly Conservative while S/Nevada is mostly transplanted Liberal progressives from Kawlifornia!


Los Angeles (United States) (AFP) - A plan to divide California into six separate US states is closer to making it on to a November ballot, with organizers gaining approval to collect signatures.
The seemingly far-fetched initiative, sponsored by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, claims "political representation of California's diverse population and economies has rendered the state nearly ungovernable."
And on Tuesday, the California Secretary of State's office gave the movement a boost, saying that proponents "may begin collecting petition signatures."
At least 807,615 voters -- representing eight percent of the total ballots cast for governor in the 2010 election -- will need to sign the petition by July 18 to make it on to the ballot. 

The proposal aims to split the state -- America's most populous with around 38 million inhabitants -- into "six smaller state governments, while preserving the historical boundaries of the various counties, cities and towns."
In 2012, California was tied with Russia and Italy -- all with a GDP of approximately $2.0 trillion -- for eighth place in world GDP rankings, according to the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy.
The proposal would create a state out of Silicon Valley, home to tech giants Google, Facebook and Apple. It would also create South California, which would include Hollywood and the US entertainment industry.
West California, Central California, North California, and Jefferson in the most northern part of the state, would also go it alone.
According to the proposal, voters overwhelming approved dividing California in two in 1859, but Congress did not act due to the Civil War.
Draper, who has funded more than 400 companies including Skype and Baidu, is founder of venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson in Menlo Park, California.

Ukrainian President Out! Time to March on DC?

Viktor Yanukovych - 23 pictures
... Him: Women In Ukraine Protest By Peeing On Photos Of Viktor Yanukovych
[Women In Ukraine Protest By Peeing On Photos Of Viktor Yanukovych] 


dictator obama - obamacare, conspiracy, obama, nwo






The Ukrainian parliament voted to set early elections for May 25 after declaring President Viktor Yanukovych unable to carry out constitutional duties.
The decision comes just hours after embattled Yanukovych said he wouldn’t respect any decisions made by parliament.
Yanukovych stated Saturday that he has no intention to resign, and called the political crisis a coup while saying it resembles the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s.
The agreement reached Friday between Yanukovych and leaders of the opposition protests that have brought Ukraine into crisis called for early elections that were to be held no later than December, and constitutional reforms to reduce the president’s powers.


Continue Reading on www.foxnews.com ...

EPA ‘Contest’ Designed To Turn Kids Into Climate Change Zombies

EPA SC
by  

The Environmental Protection Agency has a long and insulting history of imposing draconian regulations designed to battle a global warming problem that science has yet to prove actually exists. Continuing the tradition of leftist regimes throughout history, the next logical step includes indoctrinating the next generation with political propaganda.
That process is already under way within public school classrooms across the nation. To further drive home its extremist agenda, however, the EPA is teaming up with the National Environmental Education Foundation to sponsor a contest aimed at kids between the ages of 11 and 14.
To be considered for one of three eco-friendly prizes, students must create a short video answering such questions as “How are you reducing carbon pollution or preparing for the impacts of climate change?”

Naturally, there is no room for those who remain skeptical of the unproven science behind man-caused global warming. Instead, a list of “facts” is included by the NEEF, which participants are encouraged to learn prior to engaging in the contest.
Among these ostensible truths are the assertions that the “signs of climate change are all around us” and that “[r]educing carbon pollution … is key to solving climate change and reducing the risks we face in the future.”
What the EPA portrays as a vital set of inarguable facts strikes many Americans as unabashed brainwashing. The “Climate Change in Focus” campaign is explicitly open to just one interpretation of meteorological events. The NEEF assures children that the “climate you will inherit as adults will be different from your parents’ and grandparents’ climate.”

While that might actually be true, climates have changed throughout the earth’s history – even, shockingly, before the advent of carbon-emitting machinery. There is no room for dissention in the federal agency’s campaign, though.
The contest’s winners will take home environmentalist-approved prizes like a backpack with a solar panel attached. These keepsakes will be constant reminders that existing legitimate energy sources are theoretically destroying the planet.
Our federal government recognizes the surest way to create a generation of malleable citizens involves bypassing parents and directly appealing to children. This tactic has been used by corrupt regimes throughout history and, unfortunately, frequently shows signs of success within today’s America.

Your Tax Dollars At Work: NPR Airs Pornography

Photo credit: Mr.TinDC (Creative Commons)
by  

National Public Radio and its television counterpart, the Public Broadcasting System, have faced mounting criticism by taxpayers who say their income is being confiscated and used to prop up these largely unpopular media outlets. Furthermore, both networks subscribe to a leftist worldview that is readily identifiable across their programming lineups.
Nevertheless, the content aired by these taxpayer-funded institutions is generally considered safe for audiences of any age. While droning hosts and dry subject matter might serve as a sleep inducer, parents have generally had little concern regarding explicit content.
Following a recent episode of NPR’s venerable program “All Things Considered,” however, that assumption apparently no longer applies.
One segment, titled “Hurting for Cash, Online Porn Tries New Tricks,” not only included highly explicit depictions of various sex acts available for Internet viewing; it actually featured audio of a pornographic film being taped.
Peter Acworth, the perverse mind behind the smutty site Kink.com, was described as a sympathetic figure by the NPR host and producers.

“We’re suffering what happened to the music industry a while back,” he complained. “It’s becoming much more easy to get content for free and people are less apt to pay for it.”
Instead of exploring the societal issues behind an insatiable appetite for such content among much of the American public, this program chose to delve into exactly what the average porn viewer is interested in watching.
Airing several man-on-the-street responses, the segment returned results such as “ebony lesbian sex” and “heterosexual porn that doesn’t involve porn stars.”
It is undeniable that today’s youth – and, to some extent, individuals of all ages – are being desensitized to the most graphic sexual displays imaginable. A huge portion of all online content is dedicated to pornography; and astoundingly, public radio has found a way to celebrate the degeneracy.
The secular humanist left has ushered in a protracted cultural slide into hedonism. NPR is just doing its part to continue supporting the movement’s destructive plan for America – using the tax revenue of hardworking citizens.
Photo credit: Mr.TinDC (Creative Commons)

An Open Letter To The Supreme Court Of The United States

SupremeCourt building flag SC
by  

Greetings, honored justices!
I wish you well; but, alas, I wish that were the only reason for my writing.
If the United States of America were ever to cease from being a nation or otherwise fundamentally change so as to be essentially a different nation, which cannot be considered a good thing, the fault would be entirely your own. 

I can even tell you the single thing that would have been most responsible for this to have occurred: religion (or rather the suppression of it.)
You have insisted that our governments, and all our public entities supported with public money, cannot favor one religion over another (or even religion over non-religion.)
Honored justices, indeed, this one statement more than any other will explain the decline and fall of Western Civilization itself, if it goes that far.
The reason I am so certain of this is that religion, properly defined, has been at the source of our nation’s founding and Western Civilization.  And this is where the problem lies.

A religion is a set of beliefs about reality, a worldview.  A worldview is a description of how life works, what is true, what is false, what is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is bad, what are the rules (if there are any.)   A religion is a worldview that believes that there is a God and then purports to give information about God; because if there were a god/God, this would certainly have an effect on life as it pertains to human beings.
So everybody has a worldview.  And if they believe in God, it is called a religion.
Governments and nations all have worldviews as well, a basic core or system of beliefs that guides the government’s laws and policies, a nation’s culture, a country’s identity.
To deny a nation the right to define itself with a worldview that includes God is not only wrong but destructive.
But, but, but . . . .
what about the First Amendment?

The best way to answer that question is with a question.  Wouldn’t it be fair to assume that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights would have understood what they meant and then acted in ways consistent with their meaning, rather than promoting practices that were found to be unconstitutional by you 150 years later?
That very first Congress authorized the printing of Bibles for use in public schools.  The Congress hall itself was used as a church on Sundays for over 100 years, starting from our country’s earliest days.
Religion is not a list of personal preferences, as one’s taste in music, one’s favorite authors, one’s favorite food, or chocolate over vanilla.  It is a claim to truth.
Our nation’s Founders saw that in the Bible and Christianity.
Every nation has laws against murder, but that is very different from teaching our children that life is valuable because humans are created in the image of God.
Our nation teaches us to tolerate other people, which essentially means to ignore them.  Christianity and the Bible teach us to love other people, to actively seek their good.

In the early days of our country, people who didn’t believe in God were not even allowed to serve on juries, or in most cases even run for public office.  Or if they could, they would never have won.  Why?  Nobody trusted them.  It was the belief that God held people accountable for their actions that gave people their integrity, and those who didn’t believe in God and an afterlife were seen as more likely to act in their own self-interest.
Some people have contended that all things religious should be taught in the home.
I have to ask, what home?  We have taught our daughters as a nation that it is more important to have a career, or a job, than to have a family.  And our economic policies have made it harder for our women to stay at home, even if they wanted to.
And our men are less likely to marry and raise their children than at any time in history.
Why?
Worldview.  Marrying and raising children together is a Biblical and Christian principle.  Certainly, you don’t have to be Christian to have a wonderful family. But without Christianity, it wouldn’t be taught as ideal, but one option among many.  True, some other religions teach that as well, but only religions.

So for a government to be neutral toward religion is really saying that a nation must necessarily say and live and act and teach that for all practical purposes, there is no God.  And the biggest consequence of this is that government now assumes the role that God used to play in people’s lives.  Yes, people can still believe what they want in their hearts; but the government becomes the nation’s keeper rather than each of us his brother’s.
When our nation was founded (and you should know this), the big question about religion was whether or not churches were to be a function of the federal government, as it was in Europe.  The answer they gave was no.  That is what was meant in the First Amendment by establishing religion.
And the simplest proof of that was the very actions of that First Congress: establishing Congressional chaplains, calling for a national day of prayer, paying for missionary work among the Indians, printing Bibles for public schools, even opening every day’s business with prayer.
Christianity defined the (unwritten) rules for our nation: God, love, honor, work, responsibility, family, honesty, integrity.  Now our nation, our culture, our government tries to make new rules to define our existence: self-actualization; fairness; equality; tolerance; government as benefactor, ruler, protector.

The result is a nation without a sense of responsibility, whether for others or even for one’s self.
We embrace multiculturalism because we don’t value our own.  We no longer know what made us who we are, or why we ever were like that.
A nation has to decide what kind of nation we will be and what principles define us and guide us.  Christianity used to define us.  You decided that we could no longer do that, contrary to our entire previous history.  And what you left us is a secularism, bereft of any personal accountability, duties, obligations, or restraints, apart from that owed to our government or imposed on ourselves by ourselves.
To tell our government to be neutral towards religion is to tell us to draw without lines, to write without words, to speak without language, to build a house without walls or foundation.
I have written elsewhere about the four myths of a secular government in America.  It is available on my blog, poligion1.blogspot.com, but I will send you a copy.
As I said, I wish you well; but I strongly urge you to reconsider your church-state rulings because you have removed the rudder from the ship of state.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Larry Craig

I couldn't believe FEMA tried this..


Feedback: 100% (139)  FEMA Camps Rumors Flowing Again After The Agency Placed This Unusual ...
DHS Insider: “FEMA Does Not Even Know their Facilities are Earmarked ...
You’re not going to believe what just happened to a friend of mine.
My buddy Frank has been working on putting together a new line of 25-year survival food…
And I guess the government must have got wind of what he was doing because FEMA just contacted his supplier and tried to buy up the ENTIRE stock of survival food!
I couldn’t believe it — until he showed me the PROOF:
Check out this controversial new video now before its banned.
Frank has already reassured me that he’s going to keep his food out of FEMA’s hands for as long as possible… even though he could probably make a fortune by “selling out” to the government at marked-up prices.
But he also asked me to spread the word to my contact list because if you are interested in claiming your personal survival food package… the “stockpilers’ dream” with a 25-year shelf life called by some folks “the #1 item to hoard”… then you need to act fast.
Frank wants to get his survival food into the hands of people like you and me as quickly as possible, before the government finds a way to lock it up in a secret warehouse somewhere.
Why do you need your own survival food stockpile? Because when the “you know what” hits the fan and all 47.2 million freeloaders are marching in streets cleaning out every grocery store like a swarm of locusts, you don’t want to be in the same boat as the brainwashed masses and possibly herded into FEMA camps.
But instead if you get your food stockpile now, imagine how much better you’ll feel right away knowing that if a crisis hits, you will calmly reassure your family that they’re safe and they will have plenty to eat.
I strongly recommend you check out Frank’s new video right now. FEMA probably hates his video and will do anything to take it down, so it might be taken offline at any moment.
P.S. Frank’s story has gone viral and InfoWars did a report on it confirming that "FEMA is contacting storable food suppliers requesting immediate delivery of food reserves within a 24 hour period, increasing suspicions that the federal government is accelerating its preparations for social disorder or an environmental calamity." Click here to choose your food kit before they're gone.

Home Invaders Mess With The Wrong Mom!

Mom fights back against home invaders on Detroit’s west side…


This GOP Leader Wants Cruz To Leave Party

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
by  

The internal battle between establishment and conservative Republicans has gained intensity recently, especially as more and more frustrated Americans align themselves with Tea Party values like limited government and individual liberty. Desperate to retain power, many in the party’s left wing choose to focus their efforts on fellow Republicans rather than the corrupt Democrats currently in charge of D.C.
One of the latest examples of this disturbing trend came during a recent MSNBC segment featuring former Republican Rep. Steven LaTourette. Now the leader of a political action committee called “Defending Main Street,” the politico had some extremely harsh words for Tea Party hero Sen. Ted Cruz.
LaTourette, whose group receives much of its funding from sources decidedly to the left of Cruz, described Texas’ junior senator as “reprehensible” for his defense of fiscal responsibility. The recent debate over yet another hike in the debt ceiling was highlighted by Cruz’s insistence that his fellow Republicans be held accountable for their votes. Though the increase ultimately passed, it did so without a single Republican vote.

By endorsing a principled fiscal position and demanding others in the party do the same, LaTourette concluded that Cruz’s actions “cannibalize” the GOP. In reality, the outspoken conservative wing is merely attempting to stem the tide of big government waste that has largely overtaken the Republican Party.
Nevertheless, LaTourette appeared on the ultra-leftist news network to taunt Cruz and imply he is ruining the party he is trying to save.
“I don’t think he is a Republican,” LaTourette said in the recent interview. “I wish he would stop being a Republican and leave the party. That would be a nice thing.”
Millions of Tea Party loyalists and Cruz supporters would beg to differ. As long as America operates under the current two-party system, conservatives realize the only way to survive the constant assault on prosperity and freedom is by stacking the GOP with patriotic leaders.
LaTourette – along with other big government Republicans – must sense the continued rightward shift of the party’s base. In response, the only weapon left in their arsenal is the type of personal attack regularly levied against Cruz and others poised to become the new voice of the GOP.

Iwo Jima’s Marines: Still Showing Today’s “Youth Voters” What The Real Price Of Freedom Is

Photo credit:  thomascrenshaw (Creative Commons)
by

In the summer of 1965, Marine Corps Boot camp training included the boast “If it weren’t for the Marine Corps, you’d be speaking Japanese.” It was true then, and it is still true today.
Sixty nine years ago, waves and waves of eighteen and nineteen year old Marines waded ashore on Iwo Jima to defeat the Japanese and help win the war in the Pacific on American terms. They fought to keep us from being the slaves of the Japanese and being forced to end up “speaking Japanese.”
By mid-February 1945, Franklin Roosevelt knew Americans were running out of patience and money for the war against a country thousands of miles away and on its last legs anyway.

Some thought we should make peace with the Japanese and cut our losses. The only resource America had left was a Marine Corps largely filled with tough determined teenagers. They were leaders in their communities. They were from big cities and tiny towns. They were a generation of Americans that understood it had to “put aside childish ways,” man-up, and fight. They were ordinary men who had to face a great challenge and win because they were all America had left.
Today, those young Marines are grandfathers and great-grandfathers; but they are still standing up to defend American freedoms. Unlike their foolish grandchildren who voted for Barack Obama, the men who hit the beach that day don’t support Obama and never have.
At nineteen, they were wiser than most of their grandchildren will ever be. They didn’t act on emotion; they had no time for anything but reality. Their hope and change was hoping to go home alive, not whining about how terrible things were.

If you meet a Marine Iwo Jima veteran, greet him with a grateful smile. Because of him and so many others, you don’t “speak Japanese.”
Unfortunately, Iwo Jima is ancient history to today’s “youth voters”; and we won’t hear much about Iwo Jima today. To the politically correct media, it’s also “ ancient history.”  There will be a few stories about how small groups of old Marines have gathered to mark the day, but probably not much more. These days, the Japanese are one of our largest creditors; so we dare not mention their barbarous conduct during World War II.
The 19 year olds of Feb. 19, 1945 that are still with us are all over 88 now, but there are fewer of them each year. The passing years have not diminished their achievement one bit.
Time moves on, and no one knows this better than Iwo Jima’s nineteen year old men; but they still understand the difference between what is real and what is fake. They know our young people have done damage to America beyond what all of our previous enemies could only dream of doing, but they will stand firm anyway.
Mark this day and celebrate the achievements of those brave men. Today, they are still trying to give us a chance to live free. Let each one of us resolve to be worthy of the sacrifices made for us at Iwo Jima. Let us cherish the gift they gave us and continue to give us. And let us always use our freedoms wisely.
Photo credit: thomascrenshaw (Creative Commons)

Is Obama Planning A Communist Coup D’état In 2016?



by
According to a recently released top secret document by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the NSA intercepted phone calls and emails of representatives of a staggering 197 countries during a December 2009 United Nations conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. Yet, according to a report by the Huffington Post, the most shocking aspect of the spying was that it appears the Chinese had access to the same information as the NSA! It appears the NSA was actually sharing information with the Chinese!
Could the Obama administration actually be in bed with the People’s Republic of China? According to details exposed in Western Center for Journalism’s exclusive video, not only could Obama be in bed with the communist Chinese, but Obama may in fact be planning a communist coup d’état at the end of his term in 2016!
 

Fiddling While The World Burns



This is what Barack Obama meant by “year of action?” Too bad, so sad, poor Vlad. And yes, they have those in North Korea. All this, plus, Facebook feels their “pain.” Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest!

Friday, February 21, 2014

Attention: Bill and Hillary Clinton..take a hint get a clue already!


*HINT*


*CLUE*

*BOTTOM LINE *

'Assault weapons,' registration, and the lessons of Connecticut

But unlike the Spartans, we can fight from the superior side of the numbers
[This issue has the potential to be the flash point for the 2nd Revolution if the Government continues to abuse the Constitution and Bill of Rights!]

by: Kurt Hofmann
Much has been written of late about what appears to be massive non-compliance with Connecticut's "assault weapon" registration requirement (the guns are banned, but "grandfathered," if the owner registers them). Well, much has been written, that is, in gun rights advocacy circles--the mass media would apparently have us believe that it's not worth covering the fact that scores of thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--of people are committing a felony "crime" punishable by five years in prison.
That was interesting enough before the Hartford Courant editorial board decided to enter the fray, urging the state to use background check data to identify likely "assault weapon" owners, compare that list to the list of "assault weapon" registrants, and investigate the people on the first list, but not the second, in order to enforce the law:

Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.
A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.
If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.
As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea notes, this puts the state in a very unenviable position. They could acquiesce to the Courant's demands, and take on the utterly impossible--not to mention lethally dangerous, both to private citizens and Connecticut law enforcement--task of confiscating the now "illegal" guns, and arresting and imprisoning the scores of thousands of newly-minted felons. Mr. Codrea points out a few of the reasons this is impossible:

Simply as a matter of resources and logistics, the state will be hard-pressed to allocate the manpower, budget, jail facilities and court case load capabilities to do more than scratch the surface to try to frighten everyone by making examples of a few. If The Courant is going to demand they apply those resources to all, perhaps the editors would flesh out what compliance with their call to action consists of, starting with realistic costs to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate every noncompliant gun owner, the number of total hours and dedicated personnel needed to execute that plan, how many decades it will take to accomplish, how many businesses will be disrupted by losing valuable employees, how much tax revenue the state will lose by taking productive taxpayers out of circulation and turning them into dependents . . . .
Codrea notes also that the Courant has also done gun owners the favor of confirming all gun owners' concerns that background checks are backdoor registration, and registration is tantamount to confiscation--concerns contemptuously dismissed as "paranoid" by the forcible citizen disarmament zealots. That, indeed, is the first lesson: background check data can be used as a de facto registry, and the registry can serve to find guns and owners. It's a lesson that should have been learned long ago, but better late than never.
The state's other option is to not attempt this bordering-on-apocalyptic task--which the state's top "justice" system official, Mike Lawlor, has already indicated is the plan, according to another Courant article:

"A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it," said Mike Lawlor, the state's top official in criminal justice. "They could send them a letter."
An aggressive hunt isn't going to happen, Lawlor said, but even the idea of letters is a scary thought considering thousands of people are now in an uncomfortable position."
The Courant might be grossly overestimating just how "scary" these letters would be, especially given the fact that it's already clear that any kind of investigation and roundup is not in the cards. And that is the other, and most important, lesson. Scores of thousands of "assault weapon"-owning Connecticut residents have called the government's bluff. Now, what is the state going to do about it? What can it do?
In fact, as J.D. Tuccile points out in Reason, the only people likely to be forced to surrender their "assault weapons" are the ones who did try to register, but were too late:
"Some people actually tried to comply with the registration law, but missed the deadline. The state's official position is that it will accept applications notarized on or before January 1, 2014 and postmarked by January 4. But, says Dora Schriro, Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, in a letter to lawmakers, anybody sufficiently law-abiding but foolish enough to miss that slightly extended grace period will have to surrender or otherwise get rid of their guns." 

It is only through defiance of evil, unjust, illegitimate laws that one can avoid becoming a victim of them. This is a lesson for the entire country. If tens of thousands of citizens of one state can face the government down over a state gun ban and registration scheme, tens of millions of Americans can do the same in a face-off with the federal government, over an analogous law at that level. It is we the people who hold the only legitimate power in this country, and if enough of us stand together to exercise it, we can do so without firing a shot.
See also:


NYC Mayor Bill de blasio Vehicles Caught Breaking Traffic Laws...

New mayor Bill de Blasio's hugs former Secretary of State Hillary ...
[awww shucks a Progressive Commie moment..birds of a feather always flock together...liars,cheats and pervs]

NEW YORK (AP) — New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s official vehicles were spotted breaking several traffic laws on Thursday, just two days after he laid out a sweeping traffic safety plan that included harsh restrictions on reckless drivers.
De Blasio was in the front passenger seat of the lead SUV of a two-vehicle caravan that was captured on video speeding, running through a pair of stop signs and not signaling when changing lanes. The footage, which aired on WCBS-TV, was taken as de Blasio returned to City Hall after a news conference in Queens.
The mayor’s press office deferred to the police department for particulars of the incident because a member of the NYPD was behind the wheel of de Blasio’s SUV. But de Blasio’s press secretary said that “public safety is everyone’s responsibility.”

NYC Mayor’s Vehicles Caught Breaking Traffic Laws
NEW YORK, NY – FEBRUARY 18: New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio speaks at a press conference announcing his traffic safety plan for the city on February 18, 2014 in New York City. The new plan, known as ‘Vision Zero,’ includes lowering the citywide speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour, in an effort to curb motor vehicle related deaths. Andrew Burton/Getty Images
“With that in mind, Mayor de Blasio is firmly committed to the traffic safety policies outlined this week,” Walzak said in a statement that did not include an apology or admission of wrongdoing.
The NYPD did not address the specifics of Thursday’s incident in a statement, but said members of the security detail “receive specialized training in driving based on maintaining security as well as safety.” The statement spoke broadly about acceptable tactics used to keep vehicles together and said the handling of vehicles transporting any “protectee” is determined by police personnel based on “protection and professional judgment.”

The footage shows de Blasio’s vehicles starting their journey in a quiet residential stretch of Maspeth, where the mayor had just held a news conference discussing his administration’s plans to combat potholes.
The two bulky, black vehicles did not stop at two stop signs in the neighborhood. Later, the CBS camera – which was in a car that followed the mayor’s motorcade – showed de Blasio going 40 mph in an area where the speed limit was 30 mph, and then nearly 60 mph in a 45 mph zone.
The SUVs were also shown changing lanes without using their directional signals. The total number of violations witnessed by the news crew would yield a suspended license, according to the CBS report.
It was not clear from the footage if de Blasio was aware of the traffic infractions.

The mayor’s cars are typically driven by members of de Blasio’s security detail, which is made up of NYPD detectives. Security protocols suggest that de Blasio sit in the backseat because the SUV’s side windows, unlike the front windshield, are comprised of bulletproof-glass. But de Blasio, who is 6-foot-5, frequently sits in the front, where he has more room to stretch out.
Just two days earlier, de Blasio released his “Vision Zero” traffic safety plan which aims to eliminate all traffic fatalities. The plan proposed reducing the citywide speed limit to 25 mph, detailing more NYPD officers to enforce speeding violations and toughening penalties for on speeding drivers.
“We hope that every time someone reads one of your stories, they’re also asking themselves the question, are they handling their vehicle as responsibly as they could?” the mayor told reporters at the Tuesday press conference.
“The likelihood of a fatal crash and this statistic is very powerful,” he also said at the traffic event. “The likelihood of a fatal crash drops significantly for speeds below 30 mph. If we get those speeds down, it will be the difference between losing a life and saving a life.”

Brian Zumhagen, communications manager for the transit advocacy group Transportation Alternatives, said in a statement that “no driver is above traffic law.”
“We look forward to other city officials leading by example as well,” said Zumhagen, who suggested that it could be a teaching moment for all drivers.
The incident also comes just more than a week after de Blasio drew criticism for calling the NYPD about the arrest of a political ally. Bishop Orlando Findlayter was pulled over for a traffic violation and then arrested on an outstanding warrant stemming from an immigration rally last year.
The bishop was later released on a desk appearance ticket instead of spending a night in jail. De Blasio said he did not ask for his release and denied any improper behavior, saying he was just asking for information about the incident.

De Blasio is not the first mayor whose official vehicles were caught speeding. In 1998, The Daily News observed Rudolph Giuliani’s car going more than 20 mph over the speed limit while driving on Staten Island. Giuliani denied that he broke the law.

POLL: 71% Of Obama Supporters ‘Regret’ Voting For His Reelection

Over 7 in 10 Obama voters, and 55 percent of Democrats, regret voting for Obama’s reelection in 2012, according to a new Economist/YouGov.com poll.


Obama Bullies Small Employers With Bogus Perjury Charges, Threat Of Prison Time

Obamacare Dog First Big Bite SC
by  

The most thoroughly corrupt Regime in the nation’s history has told the Treasury Department–read, I.R.S–that beginning immediately, the nation’s small business owners must “…’certify’ that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the [ObamaCare employer] mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a ‘self-attestation’ on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.”
Could there be any example of outright thuggery that is more quintessentially “Barack?” Imagine employers being required to swear, “under penalty of perjury,” hand over heart and head bowed in supplication to The One that they, as business owners, “have not taken an action that they have every legal right to take.”
And could there be a less subtle way to inform the nation’s employers that an unacceptable “self-attestation” will result in the swift retribution of the Regime?

In July of last year, Barack Obama announced his politically inspired decision to delay, until 2015, implementation of the employer mandate, the ObamaCare provision that requires businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance or pay unaffordable penalties. It seems the Regime did not want reports of widespread, ObamaCare-prompted layoffs to further damage the chance of Democrats to retain control of the Senate after the 2014 election.
As a result, Obama has directed his IRS sock-puppets to perform yet another unconstitutional assault against certain members of the American public, this time business owners (lest they be tempted to reveal the true extent both of Obamacare-motivated layoffs and of the threats directed by the Regime against those employers who would dare tell the truth about it.)

After all, were it widely known that employers were laying off employees to avoid some portion of Mr. Obama’s healthcare holocaust, it would do further damage to the already dismal reputation of a program that cannot provide even marginally adequate healthcare coverage for anything resembling an affordable price.
It’s important to note that, according to Regime instructions, employers will not be ASKED to certify the personnel decisions they have CHOSEN to make in response to the requirements of the ObamaCare statute. Rather, they are being TOLD to certify the decisions the Regime has effectively DEMANDED they make–i.e. that they are not “shedding workers” in response to the employer mandate. Should an employer tell the truth and admit that he fired 2 people in order to avoid expensive premiums or mandate penalties, his punishment will be…what? As of yet, the Regime doesn’t say. But it’s doubtful that all will be forgiven and forgotten. Not when the Regime can intimidate the many by making an example of the one.
And if an intrepid boss decides to LIE when claiming layoffs had nothing to do with the law, he will be charged with perjury. Of course, the charge will be painfully illegal. But when has that stopped the Obama Administration making an example of an individual who has done something legal, but unpopular with our would-be dictator?

t’s safe to assume that a certain number of business owners will figuratively tell Barack and Co where to go by NOT signing the mandated pledge. Apart from a near-guaranteed audit by Obama’s favorite federal Service, will these courageous Americans be subjected to any other illegal abuse by Regime operatives? That will be the $50,000 question. Can someone who has acted in a legal manner be fined or imprisoned for perjury because he told the truth about what he did? Or as it is put on the Patterico’s Pontifications  site, the Regime will tell business owners to “attest that you didn’t do something you have a right to do — and if you’re lying, you go to jail.”
We sure are lucky we have a law professor in the White House, aren’t we?

Attorney: Cop Shot Teen For Answering The Door With A Video Game Controller

Attorney: Cop Shot Teen For Answering The Door With A Video Game Controller
by  
Police serving a warrant in Euharlee, Ga., shot and killed a 17-year-old boy last week when he answered the door of his home with a video game controller in hand.
Christopher Roupe, a member of the Woodland High ROTC and aspiring Marine, was allegedly holding the remote for a Wii video game when officers arrived at his mobile home to serve a probation violation warrant on his father.
When the teen opened the door, a female officer, who later claimed he had a gun, opened fire.
But the family’s attorney and some neighbors say that the officer’s story doesn’t add up.
“We don’t know where that statement came from. The eyewitnesses on the scene clearly state that he had a Wii controller in his hand. He heard a knock at the door. He asked who it was, there was no response so he opened the door and upon opening the door he was immediately shot in the chest,” attorney Cole Law said.

Tia Howard, a neighbor who lives a few doors down from the Roupe family, told WSBT that she arrived at the scene moments after hearing the shooting.
“When we got up there, they said there was a Wii remote in his hand and she shot him,” she said.
In an official statement, the police department alleged that the teen answered the door with a gun pointed directly at the female office. One neighbor on the scene noted that the officer realized her mistake almost immediately after taking the boy’s life.
“She put her head in her hands and she was sobbing,” Ken Yates told WSBT. “Supposedly, he opened the door with a BB gun and in my opinion I think he was playing a game with his neighborhood buddies.”

Statist Republicans Kill ‘Constitutional Carry’ Bill In South Carolina

Statist Republicans Kill ‘Constitutional Carry’ Bill In South Carolina
by  
A bill that would allow South Carolinians to carry guns openly or concealed without first receiving the State’s sanction through a permit was killed by Republicans. It failed to advance out of the State’s Judiciary Committee — despite a large Republican majority — under strong opposition from Republican Senator Larry Martin.
The bill is called Constitutional Carry. Backers say its premise is based on the fact that the 2nd Amendment is the only permit needed to carry a weapon.
Understanding the Republican statist position opposing the bill requires following tortured logic. It was best described by Martin himself in response to a constituent who asked him to vote to advance the bill, as reported by BenSwan.com.

“If the 2nd amendment has been as you interpret it, why hasn’t SC law reflected that for the last 140 years? I’m sorry but you are describing an ‘unlimited’ right that has never been the case with the 2nd Amendment. My view of the 2nd Amendment has always been the right to own guns and keep them in our homes, business, and property and not to wear a gun whenever to wherever I pleased.”
Of course, the Founders thought quite differently. Amazingly, so did the 9th Circuit Court last week. It ruled in a 2nd Amendment case that:

"The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a particular purpose—confrontation.” Id."

The bill was sponsored by Senator Lee Bright, a conservative who has mounted a primary challenge against Senator John McCain’s hand puppet, chicken hawk Senator Lindsay Graham (who lied about serving in a war theater). It was supported by Governor Nikki Haley. The four Republicans who voted to move the bill to the full Senate were Bright, Shane Martin, Katrina Shealy and Tom Corbin.
The trend in many States is toward restoration of 2nd Amendment rights that have been eroded over the years. In April 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a Constitutional Carry Bill. Mississippi passed a similar bill last year. Alabama passed a bill affirming “open carry” last year, but that legislation still restricts carrying in a vehicle without a permit — a provision insisted upon by the Alabama Sheriff’s Association.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Useful Idiots for Baal

cranach lucas baal painting

I stumbled upon a Christian author I was not familiar with the other day and saw that he had written from a host of secular publications about faith. From CNN to National Journal to the Huffington Post to USA Today to the Atlantic to others — these are publications that tend to be hostile to people of traditional, orthodox Christian faith. When a Christian author is routinely published in those publications and cited as a reasonable evangelical voice by those publications, I have to think he or she is really useful idiots of Baal.
From Rob Bell to Rachel Held Evans to Donald Miller to Jim Wallis to Joel Osteen and more, these people seem to think that, if they even share the gospel (as opposed to the prosperity gospel), the gospel can be shared without every offending anyone. If only Christians would not offend people they could woo people to Christ. Truth be told, some evangelicals can be far more confrontational than need be. But, likewise, the gospel is not inoffensive. These people who think the gospel can be sold to everyone without ever offending anyone are committed more to their own house brand than to Jesus and, in so doing, prop up Baal, the god of worldly conformity, more than Christ.

The gospel offends many people. Many people will die this very day somewhere in the world because of the gospel. Frankly, I think some of these people are themselves offended by the gospel. They look at the Bible as a self-help book and redact all the stuff they themselves do not agree with. They focus on social justice Jesus and not the Jesus who said
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
They have convinced themselves Jesus really would have an opinion on a government healthcare program, but never really get into Jesus’s views on damnation, sin, and salvation.

This goes also to my concern about a lot of mega churches. I have friends who are pastors of mega churches. I have friends who attend mega churches. But I think some of the church industrial complex starts building a brand and the brand is more “Six Flags Over Jesus”, as I tend to call a lot of mega churches, and less Jesus. They focus on franchises and revenue stream and weekly attendance. To do that, Jesus can rarely be offensive. More so, the spirit in the attendees can often not be matured.
By that I mean a lot of these churches are so focused on upping the baptism count that they focus solely on “come to Jesus” and never really describe what coming to Jesus entails or how a Christian, once a Christian, grows in faith. So the people in the church run the risk of being spiritually immature or not convicted of their salvation. Here’s hint: often embracing the gospel turns people’s lives upside down and, from a worldly perspective, things end badly for them.

Christ said we should enter through the narrow gate. A lot of the media’s favorite voices on Christendom preach that the gate is as deep and wide as possible for all comers. That’s simply not true. There is only one way. There is only one path. There is only one savior. All truly are welcome. But that one path offends so many not all want to be welcomed.
John 3:10-12 lays out pretty well the three reasons people will not embrace Christ: (v.10) they do not understand the gospel; (v.11) they refuse to receive the gospel; or (v.12) they do not believe the gospel. Many of these useful idiots for Baal sell a gospel stripped of its full meaning and commitment. They should be commended for wanting all comers to come, but need to be cautioned that not all comers will come. They go all Jesus all the time and quickly strip him of masculinity, godliness, justice, righteousness, power, and the ability to save. They try to sand it down so no one can reject it, but often what winds up getting accepted isn’t the real gospel, but a wordily version of an emo, weepy Jesus who can’t throw a punch that people created and not the real Jesus who will one day return on a white horse, with a sword, to judge the quick and the dead.

Too many of these people, often hipster prophets, make people comfortable in their sin while trying to sell Jesus. One comfortable in his sin rarely sees the need to embrace one who will extricate him from his sin. These peddlers of pop Christianity are useful idiots for Baal because they claim their faith in Christ without ever making anyone uncomfortable in their here and now. Christ made people uncomfortable.
As a friend noted this passage from Bonhoeffer last night in email:
“The messengers of Jesus will be hated to the end of time. They will be blamed for all the division which rend cities and homes. Jesus and his disciples will be condemned on all sides for undermining family life, and for leading the nation astray; they will be called crazy fanatics and disturbers of the peace.”
— Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “The Cost of Discipleship,” 1937.

The useful idiots of Baal are not willing to go along for that ride. They’d rather their Jesus bake cakes for gay weddings.


Time to Defend Marriage and Federalism

on federalism to see a visual representation on how federalism
Daniel Horowitz
With full control of the House but not the Senate or the White House, Republicans lack the ability to enact positive legislation; yet they have the power to stop bad bills.  Unfortunately, GOP leaders have made it clear they are willing to pass much of the Obama/Reid agenda because they don’t want confrontation with Democrats ahead of the midterm elections. For conservatives, that pretty much leaves us with the strategy of attempting to pass good bills out of the House just for messaging purposes.
With unelected federal judges and administration bureaucrats forcing gay “marriage” on sovereign states across the country, now would be a good time to show that we stand for federalism, religious liberty, and yes – even the social conservative platform to which so many members pay lip service during primaries. Abandoning the fight on this issue now could bring the death knell of concession because liberals have the infrastructure in place and are fighting harder than ever.

First the social liberals pushed their agenda in blue states through the court system.  Then, with the help of Justice Anthony Kennedy, they forced the federal government to recognize gay “marriage” at first for exclusively federal purposes, such as for immigration status.  Now, federal judges are forcing gay marriage on the states where the people and the legislatures voted decisively against it.  To make matters worse, Eric Holder is now using the federal government to promote his agenda in those states.
As we all know, the radical homosexual agenda will not stop with forcing states to recognize just the marital status.  They will not be happy to merely accept their piece of paper and “live and let live.”  They are seeking to force private citizens and individuals to cater to their beliefs.  And based on recent court decisions like the New Mexico Supreme Court’s edict, forcing a private citizen to perform her services at a homosexual marriage, we have a fight for religious liberty on our hands.

We are down to the last remaining straws in the fight for marriage.  If Republican leaders can’t stand boldly for marriage, states’ powers, and religious liberty at a time when the other side is achieving one victory after another (without any resistance from Republicans), they should publicly admit that they are completely jettisoning social conservatism from the party’s platform.
Ironically, you don’t even have to be a social conservative to understand that there is no federal constitutional right to a gay marriage, which would thereby force states and private citizens to recognize one.

There is no better time for House Republicans to bring legislation to the floor affirming their support for states and religious liberty in the face of an officious onslaught by the anti-religious left.  The State Marriage Defense Act (HR 3829), sponsored by Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), is an example of a bill that affirms states’ rights, on both sides of the issue, and doesn’t allow one unelected judge to legislate federal law across a myriad of states. The bill would require the federal government to recognize the definition of marriage within a state as that state determines it.  This law is consistent even with Kennedy’s egregious decision on DOMA, and creates equitable federalist treatment of marriage.  Senators Cruz and Lee have recently introduced a similar bill in the Senate, S. 2024.
Another bill is Rep. Raul Labrador’s (R-ID) Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, HR 3133.  This bill would protect individuals and organizations from the federal government’s encroachment on their private contracts in an effort to force them to violate their religious beliefs.  The companion bill in the Senate is being sponsored by Senator Lee – S. 1808.

It’s not enough to merely co-sponsor these bills.  The House should vote on them, and Senate Republicans should force amendment votes tacked onto other bills in an effort to expose Democrats for their anti-religion and personal freedom agenda.
While there is no chance of passing these bills out of the Senate and having the president sign them, they allow conservatives to talk about the issues on our terms.  They force leadership to talk about and prove they are protecting states’ powers and religious liberty in an election year.  Messaging this sort of legislation is precisely how you win back the majority.  It is something to be embraced in an election year, not avoided, especially if they are going to continue pretending to support social conservatism and religious liberty.

Looking back at this brutal winter, it’s important to remember another debate that seemed lost just a few years ago.  Towards the end of President Bush’s presidency, most Republicans started buying into global warming and green energy socialism.  The media joked about Senator Jim Inhofe being the last man standing against climate fascism.  Then, buttressed by Climategate, we fought back against the farce and showed how their agenda was built upon a false premise.  Now you can’t find a Republican who is willing to promote global warming, and even many Democrats have shied away from the issue.
We might not have the votes to enact marriage protection right now, but we still have a voice.  We should use it.