Log in

Previous 10

Apr. 20th, 2009

Liberty Dies


We all know Same Sex Marriage was imposed on Connecticut by Judicial Fiat. - Bill 899 promises more.

Legislative Alert

The values held by a vast majority of Connecticut’s citizens are being challenged right now at the State Capitol in Hartford.

In the next few weeks, members of the legislature will vote on a measure (Bill 899) that:

* Allows the promotion of homosexuality and bisexuality in our schools
* Allows Connecticut to condone homosexuality and bisexuality as state policy.
* Allows the establishment of quotas and goals for the employment of homosexuals and bisexuals
* Establishes members of the “gay community” as a privileged class in our state civil rights statutes

Bill 899 shreds our First Amendment protection of religious liberty.

Take Action Now. Tell your legislators to oppose Bill 899.

Please let anyone you know from CT about this and ask them to say "NO" to our legislators. It is bad enough Connecticut's radical judges mocked the will of the people on preserving Traditional Marriage, now they want to walk all over religious liberties with this bill.

Dec. 19th, 2008



(no subject)

Brown asks state high court to overturn Prop. 8

Read more...Collapse )

Dec. 10th, 2008



Pat Boone on the Prop 8 Violent Protesters

Hate is hate, in India or America
Posted: December 06, 2008
1:00 am Eastern


© 2008

Pretty rotten thing that happened in Mumbai, huh?

Grand old hotel, in an increasingly progressive and prosperous India: Suddenly, hundreds of innocent, unsuspecting people are hostages, some of them being systematically murdered. Bombs are exploding, people are screaming, military are descending into the chaos, TV crews are coming from everywhere to broadcast the carnage worldwide.

When the dust begins to settle after many horrifying hours, the body count has reached nearly 200, and many more are injured and emotionally scarred for the rest of their lives. The perpetrators? Though no demands were made, and no group immediately took credit for the insane attack, all evidence points to Islamic terrorists, likely from Pakistan.

And why? Well, if current theories and intel are correct, this slaughter was planned and executed by one of many Islamic groups that feel directed by their religion to subjugate – or exterminate – "infidels" like Hindus, Jews, Christians and even other Muslims who don't hew to their extremist views. To them, there is only one acceptable worldview – a theology they intend to enforce on all humankind – and anyone who might disagree or obstruct their goals should be removed, violently if need be.

Thank God, it couldn't happen here. Could it?

Look around. Watch your evening news. Read your newspaper.

Are you unaware of the raging demonstrations in our streets, in front of our churches and synagogues, even spilling into these places of worship, and many of these riots turning defamatory and violent? Have you not seen the angry distorted faces of the rioters, seen their derogatory and threatening placards and signs, heard their vows to overturn the democratically expressed views of voters, no matter what it costs, no matter what was expressed at the polls? Twice?

I refer to California's Proposition 8. You haven't heard about the well-oiled campaign to find out the names of every voter and business that contributed as much as $1,000, or even much less, in support of Prop 8? You haven't heard about the announced plans to boycott, demonstrate, intimidate and threaten each one – because they dared to vote to retain marriage as between one man and one woman? You haven't seen, on the evening news, prominent entertainers and even California Gov. Schwarzenegger, urging the demonstrators on, telling them they should "never give up" until they get their way?

Assuming you have become aware of all this, let me ask you: Have you not seen the awful similarity between what happened in Mumbai and what's happening right now in our cities?

Oh, I know the homosexual "rights" demonstrations haven't reached the same level of violence, but I'm referring to the anger, the vehemence, the total disregard for law and order and the supposed rights of their fellow citizens. I'm referring to the intolerance, the hate seething in the words, faces and actions of those who didn't get their way in a democratic election, and who proclaim loudly that they will get their way, no matter what the electorate wants!

Hate is hate, no matter where it erupts. And hate, unbridled, will eventually and inevitably boil into violence. How crazily ironic that the homosexual activists and sympathizers cry for "tolerance" and "equal rights" and understanding –while they spew vitriol and threats and hate at those who disagree with them on moral and societal grounds.

I was saddened to hear that the estimable Brad Pitt, who has done a lot for the displaced people in New Orleans, pledged $100,000 to his friend Ellen DeGeneris for some campaign to overturn Prop 8, saying something about constitutionally guaranteed "equal rights." I'd like to know – on just what constitutional writ does Brad base this statement?

Every homosexual citizen has the same, identical rights as any other American. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, and shouldn't. Marriage is not a governmental creation; it is a time honored and biblically ordained institution that is subject not to the government but to the will of the people. And the people, down through the centuries, have spoken. Not just the Bible, but Webster's Dictionary, defines this covenantal relationship called "marriage" as a commitment between one man and one woman.

Because this elemental building block of society has been so defined and respected throughout history, elected representatives in our self-government have granted certain supports and tax relief and privileges to marriages and families. Again, these privileges did not originate with some benevolent higher authority – they originated with the people, through the democratic process.

That's how a free republic works. Our people consecrated our Constitution and determined to live within its provisions, voluntarily. It was determined that the will of the voting majority would rule, though it was subject to change if the majority will changed.

There never were any "rights" granted or designated to those who dissented with the will of the majority, other than the same rights all citizens have to work through the democratic process to accomplish their purposes. No "rights" were ever granted to citizens on the basis of their sexual habits or lifestyle. There simply are no such "rights."

Slavery was abolished, blacks and women obtained the rights to vote, and these true rights were not obtained by threats and violent demonstrations and civil disruption (though these things did occur, of course), but by due process, congressional deliberations and appropriate ratification. This was democracy in action, not mob rule. As noted journalist Thomas Sowell has said, there never was "a right to win." In America, at least the America we've known till now, rights are earned and won in a deliberative, legal way – at the polls.

What troubles me so deeply, and should trouble all thinking Americans, is that there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists. Hate is hate, no matter where it erupts. And by its very nature, if it's not held in check, it will escalate into acts vile, violent and destructive.


Dec. 6th, 2008



(no subject)

After Being Fired For Anti-Gay Rant, University VP Sues

By Carlos Santoscoy
Published: December 03, 2008

A former University of Toledo vice president who was fired after making anti-gay statements says she is suing the university for violating her First Amendment right to free speech.

Crystal Dixon was the associate vice president of human resources for the university when she responded to Toledo Free Press Editor-In-Chief Michael S. Miller's pro-gay opinion piece Gay Rights and Wrongs, where he opined, “It's basic Golden Rule territory: Don't judge people for the color of their skin or their physical challenges, and don't judge them for their sexuality.

Her response was published on the Toledo Free Press website.

“As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner,” Dixon wrote, “I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims'. Here's why: I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended.”

“Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of P-FOX ... and Exodus International.” Both P-Fox and Exodus International remain controversial groups that claim they can “cure” gays through the power of prayer.

Dixon goes on to quote the Bible, and says there are consequences for violating God's “divine order.”

On April 30 Michelle Stecker, interim executive director of Equality Toledo, a group that advocates for the rights of gays and lesbians in and around the Toledo area, and a University of Toledo School of Law alumnus, sent out an action alert urging people to demand the university hold Dixon accountable for her “outrageous and defamatory” opinion piece.

“For me, the reason why it's newsworthy now is that five or ten years ago, no one would have even cared about the homophobic rant,” she told Cleveland's bi-weekly Gay People's Chronicle.

Dixon has now joined The Thomas More Law Center in pursuing a lawsuit against the university.

“It's clear that radical homosexuals have an inordinate amount of influence over the University President,” Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of The Thomas More Law Center said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “He openly brags about being friendly to 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning individuals'. But he doesn't care about the constitutional free speech rights of Christians.”

“Where is the so-called free expression of ideas and tolerance that universities so adamantly defend in other contexts? Crystal Dixon has a constitutional right to privately express her personal opinions, and this particular opinion represents the view of a majority of Christian Americans. Christians believe that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, contrary to natural law and under no circumstances can they be approved. Christians also believe one must love the sinner, but hate the sin. Crystal Dixon believed and expressed this – essentially she was fired for being a Christian,” he said.

The Thomas More Law Center is the same group that promised legal protection for Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern after she received threats for saying, “I honestly think it's [homosexuality] the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam,” in March.

Dixon's termination letter written by university president Dr. Lloyd A. Jacobs was posted on the gay weekly Toledo Blade website.

“The public position you have taken in the Toledo Free Press is in direct contradiction to University policies and procedures,” Jacobs wrote. “Your position also calls into question your continued ability to lead a critical function within the administration as personnel actions or decisions taken in your capacity as associate vice president for human resources could be challenged or placed at risk. The result is a loss of confidence in you as an administrator.”

Dixon says she wants compensation and her six-figure job back.

“We have asserted from the beginning that Ms. Dixon was in a position of special sensitivity as associate vice president for human resources and this issue is not about freedom of speech, but about her ability to perform that job given her statements in the Toledo Free Press. We are convinced of the correctness of our position and will bring the facts to our defense in a court of law,” university spokesman Larry Burns said in a statement provided to The Associated Press.

“President Lloyd Jacobs has done the right things,” said Stecker.


Dec. 5th, 2008



Fined For Refusing To Photograph A Homosexual Ceremony

Fined For Refusing To Photograph A Homosexual Ceremony

I’ve never heard of these human rights commissions in the United States and I had no idea they could fine people. What’s the story here?

I read this: "January 28, 2008: Jon and Elaine Huguenin, a young Christian couple from Albuquerque, N.M, were tried before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after they declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, citing their religious beliefs. The same-sex couple filed a discrimination complaint with the commission, which scheduled the hearing. In the hearing, the Huguenins cited their First Amendment rights, but the commission sided with the same-sex couple. The Huguenins were fined $6,600."

This is outrageous. Does anyone have the back story?

Volokh.com does.

Eugene Volokh writes: "Yet the New Mexico government is now telling Huguenin that she must create art works that she does not choose to create. There’s no First Amendment case squarely on point, but this does seem pretty close to the cases in which the Court held that the government may not compel people to express views that they do not endorse (the flag salute case, West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, and the license plate slogan case, Wooley v. Maynard)."


Nov. 23rd, 2008



(no subject)

Nov. 21st, 2008



(no subject)

Nov. 19th, 2008





Ronald George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno

They're going to strike down the law. I'm ready for the recall NOW.


Recall Specter Hangs Over California Supreme Court (we WILL recall those Judges!)

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Recall Specter Hangs Over California Supreme Court

Last Saturday, I argued that the case of Rose Elizabeth Bird, the late Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, who was rejected at the polls in 1986, should be the model for today's Yes on 8 proponents contemplating political options in the event that the Ronald George court decides to strike down the November 4th ballot measure.

It turns out, as the Los Angeles Times
reports, that the state high court is fully aware of the possibility of an electoral backlash should a majority on the bench overturn the wishes of a majority of the state's voters:

Six months ago, California's highest court discarded its reputation for caution and ended the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Now the moderately conservative state Supreme Court is being asked to take an even riskier step -- to overturn the November voter initiative that reinstated the gay-marriage ban and possibly provoke a voter revolt that could eject one or more of the justices from the bench.

The court is under intense pressure from all sides. Its first response to the challenges may come today, when the justices meet privately in a weekly conference to decide which cases to accept for review.

Legal scholars say case law does not give the court a clear path for overturning the voter-approved measure. The state high court -- six Republicans and one moderate Democrat -- generally defers to the will of the people. Only twice has the court rejected initiatives on the legal grounds cited by opponents of Proposition 8.

Despite the uncertainties, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said publicly that he expects and hopes that the state high court will reject Proposition 8.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, whose office must defend it, opposed the measure, and 44 legislators have called on the court to overturn it.

Civil rights groups, churches and local governments have filed six lawsuits asking the court to declare the measure an illegal constitutional revision. Letters also have poured into the court pleading for urgent action, and anti-Proposition 8 rallies have attracted large crowds statewide.

At the same time, opponents of gay marriage have warned that they will work to oust any justice who votes against Proposition 8, a threat particularly palpable in a year when voters in other states have booted six state high court justices after campaigns by special interest groups.

"It is a time of lots of crocodiles in the bathtub," said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has followed the court for decades. "Their oath requires them to ignore these kinds of political threats. But the threat of having to face a contested election is a significant one."

Uelmen used a metaphor coined by the late California Supreme Court Justice Otto Kaus, a Democrat who served on the court with Chief Justice Rose Bird before voters removed her and two justices over their opposition to the death penalty.

Kaus later said that as hard as he tried to decide cases impartially, he was never sure whether the threat of a recall election was influencing his votes.

"It was like finding a crocodile in your bathtub when you go to shave in the morning," Kaus said. "You know it's there, and you try not to think about it, but it's hard to think about much else while you're shaving."
The folks at Firedoglake aren't too thrilled about it, calling backers of a likely recall campaign "the forces behind inequality" and a bunch of "crazy supporters."

There's a bitter irony here for the leftist progressive "H8ers": California's true progressive reformer, Governor Hiram Johnson, in 1911,
empowered the voters of the state with the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. He also established non-partisan elections for judicial officials, which was the mechanism that removed Chief Justice Bird in 1986 after she refused to permit capital punishment in the state.

Now, of course, today's so-called "progressives" (neo-Stalinists, actually) reject the most important political reforms in California history, since they allow popular majorities to go over the heads of the currupt and inefficient elected officials, as well as members of the judiciary, to direct public policy themselves.

The will of the voters will prevail on this issue. The same-sex marriage activists need to try again at the ballot box after a few election cycles have passed. If the demographics are really trending toward the gay agenda of radical secularism, these folks should have nothing to worry about.



I'm ready to kick HIM out too!

Previous 10