Time for the Sleeping Giant to Awaken

Due to the massive main stream media (MSM) attack aimed directly at the base of the Republican Party, evangelical Christians, I have had do to some heavy duty thinking. I have had to think about the ugly prospect of a Congress controlled by the Democrat Party.

If the Democrats come to power, the following will occur just as night follows day:

1) There will be no protection of traditional marriage,
2) Abortion-on-demand will continue to be encouraged,
3) Religious freedoms will be attacked,
4) The Bush Tax Cuts will be repealed,
5) The tax-exempt status of many Christian organizations will be revoked,
6) Massive amnesty will be given to illegal aliens,
7) Border protection will not be enforced,
8) We will lose clear and consistent vigilance on the war on terror,
9) Abandonment of the Iraq war will occur without strategic understanding and
10) It will give the terrorists the message that we are weak.

These ten consequences of Democrat leadership are frightening. If Democrats act consistently with their recent rhetoric, philosophies and style of government, they will turn the American dream into a secular-progressive nightmare. That is something I will not endure willing.
The Democrats and their water carriers in the main stream media have used the war in Iraq and recent revelations of scandal as a hammer to drive home the “it’s time for a change” message. The media asks, “How can good Christian people continue to identify with the Republican Party that is filled with so many “sinners”? Well Romans 3:23 tells us “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

The recent Foley and Abramoff related scandals have simply pointed out to us that there are some very flawed individuals at our nation’s helm: The media gleefully attempts to point out evangelical Christian hypocrisy through these scandals. They neglect to mention the very same type of behavior is being practiced by Democrats also, William Jefferson (D-LA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) to name just two. The glaring difference here is that the Democrat scoundrels are still in office while the Republicans have resigned immediately and/or are in jail.

I hope that what the Democrats and the MSM have done with their rhetoric is to awaken the sleeping giant called the evangelical church, values voters, to the fact that we are still in a culture war. This is more than enough motivation, more than ever before, to get involved in the political process. Support good candidates, pray for our leaders and get out and vote!

I have heard many say that the Republican Party “deserves” to loose in this election. It is being written by many pundits as a “Pre-mortem” even suggesting that it would be a good thing for Republicans to loose control of the House and Senate.

Do you deserve higher taxes to support secular-progressive agendas? Do you deserve to have your Faith further ridiculed and slandered? Do we deserve to have terrorists attack our cities with impunity while the ACLU confers citizenship privileges on those that are caught… if they are caught? Do we deserve to have our country overrun with illegal aliens? I do not deserve that and neither do you.

Do not get caught up in the lie that ALL Republicans are evil and corrupt. Do not believe that a change to Democrat control will solve our Nations problems. It won’t!
I bought into to that media lie in 1992 when George H.W. Bush broke his “read my lips, no new taxes” promise. I stayed away, I did not vote. What I got for that protest was eight years of Bill Clinton.

Never again!

World Trade Center - The movie

I was reading Debbie Schlussel’s "Horrid World Trade Center": Oliver Stone Makes Conspiracy Theorists, Islamist PR Artists Proud" column today.

Debbie makes the point that “boy genius” and darling of the Liberal Left, Oliver Stone, is being hailed by pundits (both Liberal and Conservative) for "sticking to the facts" and "playing it straight" with his new film “World Trade Center.” Statements that are true only if you view the events of 9/11 through an eye of a needle.

According to Debbie, the film (which I have not and will not see) fails to address:

“Who caused the attacks of 9/11? Who hijacked planes? Who flew them into the Towers? In "World Trade Center," it's hard to tell. Nicholas Cage's cop rescued from beneath the ruins speaks of "the evil"; a Wisconsin cop twice mentions the "bastards"; And a marine speaks about the need to "avenge this." But what is the evil? Who are the bastards? What needs to be "avenged"? Stone deliberately whitewashes the clear-cut answer to these questions--extremist Islam's attack on Americans.”

A reader, NormanF, posted some comments on Debbie’s blog lamenting that the events of 9/11 have been systematically erased from the public memory. I responded with a post of my own as follows:

NormanF is spot on with his comments regarding the erasing of 9/11 events from public memory. It is abhorrent to me that in this age of digital media that the videos of the planes hitting the building, the resulting fireballs and the buildings crumbling into ash heap graves were immediately withdrawn from the MSM news programs. I have seen still shots of the “Arab Street” celebrating but have no real memory of the video footage as it was killed faster than Reuters’ pictures of smoke plumes over Beirut and Israeli F-16 “firing missiles.”

If I recall correctly, all the pundits and assorted “mental health experts” opined that the video of 9/11 was just too horrible for viewing. That our pain was too great and that we required time to heal. Male Bovine Dung! If that were true why then are our tender sensibilities not threatened by the daily dose of overstated (forged) Palestinian, Lebanese and Arab grief?

Can you say, Agenda? There, I knew you could.

Just another brick in the wall of Leftist propaganda designed to separate us from the truth.

Be well,
JG

Mt. Soledad Cross Victory

Here is some good news for a change. While this action will slow down the secular attacks, it will not stop them.

AgapePress

Mt. Soledad Cross's Victory in Congress Won't End CourtBattles, Supporters Say

By Jenni ParkerAugust 2, 2006

(AgapePress) - Conservative political leaders and pro-family advocates are applauding the U.S. Senate's swift, unanimous passage last night of the Bill to Preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial. Strongly opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the legislation provides for the federal government's immediate acquisition of the embattled San Diego veterans memorial, which features a 29-foot-tall cross.

Transferring the land and the memorial to the Federal Government places the memorial under the protective wing of the DOD. That is the good news. The government has deep pockets and can withstand a barrage from the ACLU much better than the city of San Diego. It should also make the current lawsuit go away as it was based on the cross being unconstitutional under the California Constitution.

The votes in the House (349-74; July 19, 2006) and Senate (Unanimous: August 1, 2006) on the bill to take federal control of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial literally flew through congress. It would appear that our elected representatives’ might…, possibly…, perhaps be listening to us for a change. But then again, it is an election year.

The bad news is it will probably not stop the Leftist Secularists from their goal of removing all signs and symbols of Christianity from public view. My guess is that the California lawsuit, as I speak, is being recast and filed as being federally unconstitutional. The same federal judge will agree and it will then appealed to the Ninth Circus… uh, Circuit who will sanctimoniously agree.

“In the court room of honor
the judge pounded his gavel
to show all is equal
and the courts are on the level.”

Bob Dylan
The Lonesome Death of Hatti Carrol

Be well,
JG

Court Intervenes in Calif. Cross Fight

I just read an AP story regarding the Mount Soledad National War Memorial ‘Cross’ controversy. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court issued and injunction to stop the removal of the cross ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. in May 2006; he ordered the city to take down the 29-foot cross before Aug. 2, 2006 or pay daily fines of $5,000.

The battle has been on going since the cross was contested in 1989 by Philip Paulson, a Vietnam veteran and atheist. Paulson's attorney, James E. McElroy, an ACLU hack, played down the significance of Kennedy's order saying "What he really did today was nothing”; Perhaps.

There is hope for favorable outcome here. The SCOTUS has in its most recent cases involving religious symbols ruled last year in a two 5-4 decisions that overtly religious displays are unconstitutional but historic ones are allowed. The Mount Soledad Cross is a part of a National War Memorial and as such should be protected.

But how have we come to this? What is it that the courts do not understand about the Establishment Clause? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…“

Those words seem pretty straight forward to me. Congress, that is the Federal Government, can make no law that “establishes” a religion. Those ten words have been turned, twisted and redefined; not by Congress (the voice of the people), but by an out of control judicial system. Terms such as “separation of church and state”, “wall of separation” and “preference of one religion over another” have been woven into the fabric of the First Amendment by Judges who have removed the blindfold of justice and replaced it with secular blinders.

The judge’s ruling in the Mount Soledad case, which he described as "long overdue," found the cross to be an unconstitutional display of government preference of one religion over another*. Would someone please show me where the Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular says that the government cannot “prefer” one religion over another? Establish and prefer are not synonyms in any dictionary I ever consulted. *my emphasis

I believe it is fair to say that the United States of America prefers Christianity over other religions. That does not make us a theocracy. We are a nation born in the light of Judea-Christian Faith; it is prominent on our Seal, on our money and engraved in stone on some of our great buildings of government. It is declared in our Declaration of Independence, in the writings of the Father’s of our country and the Framers of the Constitution.

James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, put it this way in 1785.

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

John Adams, our second President and a framer of the Constitution, stated it very bluntly…

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . The general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.”

And

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Consider these words from Calvin Coolidge, our 30th president:

"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

If “Silent Cal” was right, what does that say for our future in an increasingly secular society?

Then too, these anti-Christian bigots always base their arguments on the first part of the establishment clause… there is a second part that is conveniently ignored; “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Where and when are our rights as a Christians going to receive some consideration?

How is it that burning the American Flag on public property is protected by the Constitution but the display of Cross on public property is forbidden? We have freedom of speech but not freedom of religion. Why? The reasons are many but the rational is woefully lacking. Somehow we have gotten to the point where if one is offended all must suffer. I say to you, as an American, you are free to say what you will, believe what you will but you do not have the freedom to not be offended.

If by some quirk the SCOTUS upholds the lower court order of removal it will further threaten all Christian’s Constitutional right to freely practice their religion. And it would threaten Arlington and other National Cemeteries where thousands of Crosses mark the graves of those why made the ultimate sacrifice in pursuit of Freedom. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Where the ACLU Gets Its Cash

As Neal Boortz says, “You shall know the truth and… THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU MAD!”

Well today I found out a truth and it has made me MAD. ANGRY! Here it is quoted from www.frc.org

Cleaning Up by Christian Cleansing

Every American is a donor to the ACLU. How can that be? Well, the American Legion's Rees Lloyd testified under oath as a former staff attorney for the ACLU how that outfit gains windfall profits from its anti-Christian litigation.

Lloyd spoke of an obscure provision of the Civil Rights Act that allows that inveterately hostile organization to reap millions of dollars in attorney fees by going after local governments that recognize America's religious heritage in any way. Principally, the ACLU attacks the cross, but it also attacks Judaism's Star of David, Lloyd said.

The ACLU milked San Diego for $950,000 in attorney's fees when it moved to drive the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park. It got $500,000 in the Alabama Ten Commandments Case. And the costs for compliance with court-ordered "cleansing" operations initiated by the ACLU can be substantial, too.

Los Angeles will spend $1 million to remove a tiny cross from all badges, shields, and seals. (But the Roman goddess Pomona will remain.) Rees Lloyd testified in favor of Rep. John Hostettler's Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), H.R. 2679. That act would put an end to the ACLU cleaning up from cleansing all evidence of Christianity.

Please call and ask your Member of Congress to co-sponsor H.R. 2679.

Please forward this e-mail to your friends.

Take Action Now Support
the ‘Public Expression of Religion Act'

Now everyone knows that the ACLU is a bunch of long haired, maggot infested, dope smoking, anti-Christian, FM types. But this is even beyond the pale for these bottom feeders. Not only are they hell-bent on stripping religion from the public square they are raping the tax payers in the process. We always hear how well funded the ACLU is, well now we know where a goodly portion of that funding comes from: you and me!

Why haven’t we heard about this before? Where the hell are the great Right-Wing Conspirators? I mean I wouldn’t expect the “drive-by” media to tell us but the Conservative/Religious folks should have been on top of this long ago.

Get out you email program and tell your representative to back H.R. 2679! Then Monday get on the phone to your representative and tell him to support the 'Public Expression of Religion Act'. Then call your local talk radio station and get the word out. Crank up your word processor, IBM Selectric or sharpen up a pencil and write a Letter to the Editor of your local paper.

I’m outta here.
JG

Senate Vote on MPA

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with the US Senate? Today (June 7, 2006) a cloture vote to bring the MPA to a vote of the full senate failed on a 49-48 vote and three not even showing up for the vote.

The vote was pretty much along party lines with the exception of six RINO’s that voted Nay (the usual suspects: Snowe (R-ME) Collins (R-ME) McCain (R-AZ) Specter (R-PA) Gregg (R-NH) Sununu (R-NH).) The big surprise was that two Democrats voted Yea. Ben Nelson (D-NE) was not all that surprising but Robert Byrd (D-WV) came as a shock to me. But even if the six RINO’s had not defected and the three no-shows had vote Yea, the motion would have failed needing 60 votes to send the measure to the full senate.

This was pretty much a case of the world’s most exclusive club protecting its members. By denying the bill a vote of the full senate it gives cover to those members who are up for re-election this year. They can go back home and campaign saying they didn’t vote against the Amendment they just vote to provide more debate on the issue. Yeah, right!

Homosexual marriage is a potent political issue, with opponents ever more dedicated to preserving the traditional definition of marriage. A Pew Research poll conducted in February 2004 found: "Gay marriage has surpassed other major social issues like abortion and gun control in its influence on voters. Four in ten voters say they would not vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on gay marriage, even if they agree with the candidate on most other issues." The poll reported that "voters oppose gay marriage by more than two to one (65 percent to 28 percent), a margin that has remained generally steady since October."

Blue State politicians have constituents that are opposed to Gay Marriage. With a 65-28% margin it means that even Blue State politicians have to know that the people of their states no matter what their politics believe that Marriage should be legally defined as “the union of one man and one woman.”

So rather than face the wrath of the voters our elected representatives once again disregarded their responsibility and leave the matter up to the courts.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Dear Mr. President

I am a Conservative Republican. I supported you in 2000, I supported you in 2004. I supported your policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. I supported two of your three candidates for the Supreme Court, although the truth is, the Jury - so to speak - is still out on those choices.

I cannot and will not support your current policy regarding ILLEGAL aliens or Immigration. I refer particularly to your remarks Thursday June 1st, 2006 at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Specifically when you said; "I urge our fellow citizens to understand that harsh language, unnecessary politics sends the wrong message about who we are in this nation."

Mr. President, I urge you to understand that the people of this nation want some harsh language (and immediate action) in respect to the massive ILLEGAL migration that is taking place Northward across our Southern border. We want it stopped. NOW! It is not immigration we want stopped, it is the ILLEGAL aliens we want stopped; which brings me to my next point. Following the above statement you said, "I appreciate the fact that you're working on an immigration bill that is comprehensive. That makes a lot of sense because you know that all the elements of this problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all."

We made the mistake in 1986 of trying to “address all of the problems” of ILLEGAL aliens. I don’t remember who the Prophets were at that time who said if we granted amnesty to the 5 million or so ILLEGAL aliens then in the country it would just entice more to enter illegally but they were right; in spades! The current Senate bill is nothing more than a rehash of the 1986 law and if passed will do nothing to address the problems and in fact will exacerbate them.

Mr. President your statements above regarding the problem of ILLEGAL aliens are preposterous. If I may use a medical analogy here; you must first stop the bleeding before you can treat the wound. What we have here are three problems that while related are not interdependent and it requires a logical, three step process to solve them:
1)Stop the bleeding. First we must SECURE the border;

2)Treat the wound. Then, and only then, can we determine what we are going to do about the millions of ILLEGAL aliens that are already here.

3)Prescribe a regiment to preclude recurrence. Only when first two problems are solved can we deal with matters regarding LEGAL immigration; guest workers, etc.

Mr. President I believe that the last thing the American people want or need at this point is another “Immigration Law.” The “Laws” we have now are not being enforced that is why we have an ILLEGAL alien’s problem. What I believe the American people want and need is for you and the Congress to fulfill your primary responsibility as our elected officials; to secure our country.

We elected you to represent us not rule us. If you and the Congress cannot understand that concept and act accordingly, then we will find people among us who do and will.