Tell President Obama: Respect my voice! (click link)

-SBA List

Homosexuality is a hot topic that was bound to make it onto this cultural values blog at some point.
The Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality (which I support) is not popular in Madison, where I live. Madison is a very liberal– no, radical place. Home of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and numerous other radical groups.

I have delayed discussing homosexuality on my blog in the past.  Primarily because I would rather focus on the “wooden beam in my own eye” before pointing out “the splinter in my brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:3   In other words, I am in no rush to discuss the sins of others.  I am also no expert on this subject.

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. – Matthew 7:3  

 However, recent events in the news have brought the subject of homosexuality to the forefront of public discussion again, and perhaps it is time for me to weigh in with some thoughts.  I will defer to experts on the subject and provide some useful references below for those who are interested in understanding why the preservation of traditional morality and of traditional marriage is so important to so many Americans.

Recent events:

Vice President Biden announced five days ago that he was ‘absolutely comfortable” with homosexual marriage, thus putting President Obama on the spot regarding Obama’s position on homosexuality.

Obama "evolving"

Most recently, President Obama had said that his position on homosexual marriage , although he was opposed a few years ago, is “evolving.”  So now President Obama was placed on the hot seat regarding this issue.
Three days ago, North Carolina approved and amendment banning gay marriage, and banning same-sex civil unions as well.

Yesterday, President Obama announced his personal support of gay marriage, after statements in the past opposing gay marriage.  He attributed this change to his “evolving stance” on gay marriage.

The other two Presidential candidates (Mitt Romney and Ron Paul), mirroring the values of the majority of Americans, still stick to the traditional definition of marriage as one man- one woman.  And no, the Republican primary is not yet over!  (Updated post coming soon.)

.

.

.

.

Where Does America Stand on Gay Marriage?

Some data indicates majority support of gay marriage

.

Gallup results indicate that half of Americans support legal gay marriage.
The results seem to be hovering right around 50/50, within the margin of error, within the last two years.

CNN polls indicate that a slight majority of Americans support gay marriage (50% support, 48% oppose).

.

Some data indicates majority opposition to gay marriage

North Carolina’s passage of a state constitutional amendment legally preventing gay matrimony yesterday makes North Carolina the 30^th state to implement a ban on same-sex marriage.  30 States out of 50 is 60%.  This implies that 60% of America opposes gay marriage.

Also, Public Policy Polls (PPP)  indicate a significant majority of Americans opposing gay marriage:

Americans within pretty much every demographic group continue to oppose gay marriage. Whites are against it 58/34, Hispanics 57/27, and African Americans 52/34. Women oppose it 55/35 and men do 59/31. Voters under 30 do 52/44, ones between 30 and 45 do 51/37, ones between 46 and 65 do 59/29 and those over 65 do 61/31. 

PPP continues by discussing the disparity between their results and the results of other polls:

Obviously these poll results are very different from a CNN poll earlier this week that showed Americans moving in support of gay marriage, but disparities between live interviewer and the automated polling we do on this issue are not a new thing. Last fall our polling in Maine showed an anti-gay marriage measure passing by 4 points while live interviewer polls by Democracy Corps and Pan Atlantic SMS showed it failing by 9 and 11 points respectively. The measure did end up passing by a margin of 5.5 points.

Why the disparity between automated and live interviewer polls on gay marriage? Americans are still biased against gay people…but some of them know that’s wrong and they shouldn’t be. Because of that they’re more likely to tell their true feelings on an automated poll where there’s no social anxiety concern than to a live interviewer who they may be worried about the reaction of. — PPP

Bottom line:

Without a national election on this issue, it is impossible to say whether the majority of Americans support or oppose gay marriage, because polling results are so mixed on this issue.

The only certain conclusion so far is that in 30 states, the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.

• When different polling techniques are used (automated versus human interview), different results are obtained.

• When pre-election poll results are compared with actual election results, disparities surface.

• So election results become impossible to predict

.

Why the Disparity Between Polls and Election Results on Gay Marriage?

The PPP poll cited above proposes one reason for disparity between polls:

Americans are still biased against gay people…but some of them know that’s wrong and they shouldn’t be. Because of that they’re more likely to tell their true feelings on an automated poll where there’s no social anxiety concern than to a live interviewer who they may be worried about the reaction of.

I would propose a very different reason for disparity between polls, based on my own philosophy, which is probably not too unusual in America today:

I live in a very radical place (Madison, WI), where conservative thinkers are ridiculed, and it is politically incorrect to think or say anything conservative.  A number of places in America have become that way. 

Based on my local political activism, I have even received threatening phone calls in my home, from local small-time politicians calling me names!
Naturally, I have become cautious about baring my soul to random strangers who telephone my home.  Guess what?  I never participate in any poll.  During this election season, Gallup has already telephoned me twice, and I declined to participate.

When radicals create a hostile atmosphere in which people are ridiculed, shouted at, and horns are blown in their ears for voicing conservative opinions, guess what?  They hesitate to express conservative opinions.   Particularly to strangers.

But when they enter a polling booth, where we presume (hopefully correctly) that our vote is protected and is private, and where expressing our opinion will have an important repercussion on the future of our nation, we vote our conscience.

So PPP and I agree that people may either not participate, or not be honest in polls, depending on the reaction they expect to get from those administering the poll.  We might disagree about the reasons why people withhold their true beliefs, but we agree that people do not always reveal their true opinions.

Result of Not Divulging Beliefs in a Poll

If even one out of 10 conservatives has my philosophy of not participating in random polls, and approximately 60% of America is conservative, then 6% of  people polled would be conservatives who refused to participate and were not counted in the survey.

You would have to add 6% conservative votes to the results of a poll to make it accurate. When Gallup says that Americans are 50/50 on gay marriage, you would have to say no, Americans must be 56/44 opposing gay marriage, because of the conservatives who hang up on Gallup like I did.

This is precisely what we see in the disparate data quoted above.  When PPP uses automated polls  which are less personal than Gallup’s human interviewers, they come closer to the conservative result.  Conservatives may feel less threatened by an automated computer survey, and less likely to feel labeled by radical activists on some list of “bigots” who need to be targeted with Alinsky tactics.

Angry phone calls from liberal activists

In elections, unlike in telephone polls, complete anonymity (we hope) is guaranteed.  Then, for elections, watch out, the conservatives will come out in full force, as they did in North Carolina three days ago on the marriage amendment.

The reason conservatives refrain from advertising their opinions in advance of an election is not because they know that’s wrong, as PPP would like to suggest.  It’s precisely because they know that it’s right. They know that their opponents use dirty tactics, and thus it is foolish to advertise plans when you are fighting a cultural (or any) war.  Incidentally, PPP’s suggestion that people alter their poll responses because they know that opposing gay marriage is wrong betrays PPP’s bias:  the polling agency, PPP, is not neutral, but has attached moral judgment to the poll they are administering.  What would any good scientist say about introducing that bias into a scientific study?  PPP is not being professional in administering the poll.  What results would they see if they utilized unbiased personnel in their polling? A further increase in conservativism?

Long-Range Results of Not Divulging Beliefs in Polls

When conservatives keep their opinions to themselves quietly, when they avoid participating in polls, avoid displaying yard signs, avoid big and noisy demonstrations and avoid political conversations socially, a false impression is often created.  The false impression is that nobody thinks conservative thoughts or has conservative opinions.

Liberals are liberal with their complaints, liberal with their exaggerations, liberal with their demonstrations, and liberal with their demands. They are even liberal with their methods, adopting more and more extreme methods to demand what they want, until some are honking vuvuzelas in opponents’ ears.

Madison, WI Union protests

The media, dominated by liberals, furthers this impression by promulgating liberal ideas and ridiculing conservative ideas.

This silence of conservatives leads people to believe that the majority opinion is a liberal one, and that the conservative philosophy has either become a minority philosophy, or is near extinction.  However, as we can see from the marriage amendment votes in 30 states, conservatism is quite alive and kicking.

Now that We’ve Discussed What Americans Think-
What About Experts, Like Religious Leaders?

One Religious Leader in Madison Stuck to His Guns in Support of Traditional Marriage for over 50 years

Rev. Pritchard in discussion with Madison's Roman Catholic Bishop Robert C. Morlino

Last month, an article on Rev. Pritchard of Madison, WI brought up the subject of gay marriage, and I put together my thoughts, which are quoted below.

The Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ, March 31, 2012) ran an article about Rev. Pritchard, who was a well-known and respected Madison religious leader for decades, and who is now 98 years old.  He was pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Madison for 21 years, until his removal by the denomination’s governing body over dissension among members over his leadership style (could this have been related to his conservative philosophy in Madison?).  He then continued as pastor of Heritage Congregational Church for another 18 years until 1984.  Rev. Pritchard decried X-rated bookstores, massage parlors, and nude dancing.  Throughout his entire ministry in liberal Madison, Rev. Pritchard opposed same-sex marriage, and opposed pornography.  Unusual for a religious leader in Madison, WI.  Now, Rev. Pritchard, at 98 years, still preaches and teaches bible studies.

Accusations of Bigotry and Hatefulness

Pritchard still remains staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage, and in the online discussion following the WSJ article, one reader was prompted to attack him:

This man is a bigot and a hateful person.  Age has not modified his grotesque distortion of Christ’s teachings.  

My instinct was to defend this gentle teacher who had spent his whole life serving the spiritual needs of Madisonians with conviction.  A 98-year-old man  who said that he “tried to convey his love for all of humanity, even when he disagreed with a particular view or lifestyle; “I never wanted to be mean,”  did not deserve the bigotry and hate label that liberals dispense so freely.

In Defense of Rev. Pritchard and other Religious Leaders

My online response to the angry reader has stood unchallenged now for over a month

Seamus-

Disagreement with you does not define bigotry and hatefulness.

I do not know Rev. Pritchard, but if he’s anything like all the other Rev.s I know, he does not hate anybody. He simply recognizes the dangers of the gay lifestyle for individuals and for society.

The vast majority of the world’s religions, and the vast majority of the world’s people, believe that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy for the individual and for society.

This is not bigotry, this is scientific fact. Look at the Center for Disease Control website.

The part that many fail to realize is that the “religious” people who oppose the gay lifestyle also oppose the promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle, and that they have no problem whatsoever with chaste homosexuals, same as no problem with chaste heterosexuals. To call us hateful because we disapprove of dangerous disease-spreading behavior is barking up the wrong tree.

Note also, that we simply disapprove. We do nothing about it, just disapprove.  Where does anybody get the idea that they should be able to control what we approve/disapprove of? As they would say in the playground; “You’re not the boss of me.”

Regarding Christ’s approval/disapproval of the gay lifestyle, you will also find the majority of religious

Christ was not a "feel-good" kind of guy

experts agree that Christ would not encourage the promiscuity/party animal atmosphere of the gay lifestyle. 

People need to differentiate between homosexuality, which is harmless, and the gay lifestyle, which implies a party animal atmosphere. The party animal atmosphere is damaging in either context; homosexual or heterosexual.

Basically, those who indulge in the party lifestyle are saying “I indulge in excess, I spread illness, I destroy my family and my relationships, and you all pay for the damages.”

What society can survive with that?

BTW, we “religious” people also disapprove of other excessive behaviors, too — overeating, excessive drinking, driving too fast, and many other forms of excess. 

Irresponsible sexual excess, heterosexual or homosexual, belongs in the same category, and any society that publicly condones these is headed for trouble. 

That’s the other important distinction: there is a difference between tolerating people’s mistakes, and publicly celebrating and encouraging those mistakes.  I am overweight; people tolerate me, but they don’t have to approve, facilitate or celebrate my weight problem. The gay lifestyle falls into the same category.  Religious people are happy to tolerate gays just as gays tolerate fat people.  Just don’t try to force us to approve. 

Religious Leaders Across the United States

Cardinal Dolan

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage, as do numerous Churches and Church leaders.  One comprehensive statement summarizing these beliefs and explaining the rationale behind these beliefs is the Manhattan Declaration.

The Manhattan Declaration is a declaration on justice and the common good, designed to protect and defend vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family – defending human life, marriage, and religious liberty.
Short Version of the Manhattan Declaration
Full Text of the Manhattan Declaration

The Manhattan Declaration

The Manhattan Declaration has been signed by 250  Religious & Organizational Leaders, as well as by 526,871 others, including me.

Signatories include over 57 Catholic Bishops, including Cardinal Dolan, as well as numerous other religious leaders – Baptists, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Orthodox, Calvinists, Methodists, The Salvation Army, Hispanic Christian Leadership, Coalition of African-American Pastors, and National Religious Broadcasters, to name a few groups.
List of Religious Leaders signing the Declaration
Sign the declaration yourself

Resources on Marriage

The Manhattan Declaration, probably the largest collection of Christian leaders and experts from across the board in America, has provided a variety of useful references for those who are interested in understanding why the preservation of traditional morality and of traditional marriage is so important to so many Americans:
Manhattan Declaration Responds as President Affirms Same-Sex Marriage:
10 links on Marriage from the Manhattan Declaration:

-       What is Marriage?
-       by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson
-       http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

-       Why I’m Optimistic About Natural Marriage
-       by Andrew Walker
-       http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/why-im-optimistic-about-natural-marriage/

-       Why Is Marriage Important? (video)
-       by John Piper
-       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd3AmKexugM

-       Who Needs Marriage?
-       by Chuck Colson
-       http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/colson-files/17606-who-needs-marriage

-       Marriage in Society: The Generation Clash (pps. 47-57)
-       by Matthew Lee Anderson
-       http://issuu.com/thecity/docs/thecitywinter2009/47?mode=embed&layout=http://skin.issuu.com/v/light/layout.xml&showFlipBtn=true

-       What Would Bonhoeffer Do?
-       by Eric Metaxas
-       http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/call-response/15129-metaxas-what-would-bonhoeffer-do

-       Dennis Prager Debates Perez Hilton on Same-Sex Marriage (Warning: YouTube contains objectionable content)
-       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

-       Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage
-       by Matthew J. Franck
-       http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/religion-reason-and-same-sex-marriage

-       A Marriage in Full
-       by Gary A. Anderson
-       http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/04/003-a-marriage-in-full-3   

-       On Marriage and the Moral Limits of Human Sexuality
-       by Metropolitan Jonah
-       http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/metropolitan-jonah-on-marriage-and-the-moral-limits-of-human-sexuality/

Reactions to President Obama’s Announcement of his Support for Gay Marriage

Americans React

One of the most noteworthy reactions to President Obama’s announcement of his support for gay marriage is, ironically, a  poll result.
The Rasmussen Poll results dominate the Drudge Report Headline today:

Backlash
Poll: Obama Trails Romney 7%
Drudge Report

Obama 43%, Romney 50%.
If one dared to add 6% for conservatives who don’t participate in polls (as discussed above), that would make Obama 37%, Romney 56%.  Of course, that is just my speculation.

Either way, a catastrophic backlash against Obama, almost overnight.

Religious Leaders React

President Obama with Rev. Joel Hunter

President Obama’s spiritual advisor, the Rev. Joel Hunter,  expressed “disappointment” with Obama’s gay marriage endorsement.

Cardinal Dolan, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, called President Obama’s remarks on marriage “deeply saddening.”

The Manhattan Declaration, a group of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders, and scholars, expressed their disappointment.

Billy Graham commented:

Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern. I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected.

At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage,” says Mr. Graham in a full-page ad scheduled to run in 14 North Carolina newspapers. “The Bible is clear—God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. 

Pope Benedict did not comment directly, but two months ago he decried the “powerful gay marriage lobby in the United States.

Some Headlines in the Media

Conservative news sources would be expected to criticize President Obama’s new position on gay marriage.  But this time, even the liberal-dominated mass media took a significantly more cautious tone:

• The Washington Post stated that Obama’s position on gay marriage is just one more attempt to manipulate the gay vote, and that he had to be prodded into it by Biden.
• CNN implied that Obama made his gay marriage announcement based on opinion polls, not on his moral convictions.
• Associated Press ran an article on the world’s disappointment with Obama’s presidency. Obama’s support of gay marriage was not the focus of the article, but was mentioned.
• msnbc headline: Obama who? Gay marriage foes seek to extend gains.

Conservative Sources:

• Fox News: House panel votes to ban same-sex marriages on US military bases. 
  “On the same day that President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage, the House Armed Services Committee backed measures prohibiting the practice on U.S. military bases….”
•  Weekly Standard, in a article entitled ‘On By Behalf,’  challenged the President’s “evolution,” calling his account not credible, and accusing him of manipulating the military for political purposes.

Summarizing So Far

So we’ve covered President Obama’s opinion on gay marriage, what America thinks, religious leaders’ opinions, and some media response to President Obama’s announcement of his personal feelings on gay marriage.

Now we can ask why do gays want marriage?
and
Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?
But we define marriage first.

.

Defining Marriage

According to Merriam-Webster, marriage is “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.”  The use of the words “husband and wife”, implies mutual rights of sexual intimacy, life in common, and an enduring union.  The union is expected to produce children, and generally does, even in 2012, after the advent of chemical contraception.  Men and women want children, they are biologically designed and equipped to have children, and people usually get the most satisfaction in life from a rewarding family life, more so than from material possessions. It is the normal function of a man and woman to raise a family, as intended by nature (i.e. God, it’s designer).

Society grants a special status, to a husband and wife, with special privileges, in marriage.  This is because marriage is “sacred,” both in the religious, and in the secular sense.  Marriage is “sacred” in the religious sense, because a man and a woman cooperate with God in the creation of future human beings.  Love is an essential component of that cooperation, and an essential element of what children learn, living in a nuclear family.

Marriage is “sacred” in the secular sense, because a man and a woman create the future members of the human race.  The resulting “family” is the most successful unit for providing free and sacrificial love and labor, which perpetuates the human race, at no cost to the government.  No other type of family unit has been as successful as the one-man, one-woman with children model which has dominated society for millennia.

Just as soldiers get special status and special privileges for courageous patriotic behavior, like receiving the purple heart, and just like those who go beyond the call of duty in service to their nation get knighted by the Queen, so also, parents get special status and special privileges for the function they perform in forming the future citizens of the world.  The work of producing and molding future citizens is hard, the work is essential, and society is grateful to those who perform it.

Why do Gays Want Marriage?

First of all, many gays do not want marriage.  There is dissension within the gay community on the desirability of marriage.
But for those gays who do want marriage, let us continue the discussion…

• Gays are not biologically equipped to have children with each other, so this could not be the primary motivation for gay marriage.
• Feelings might be one motivation — the desire to express some specially tender feelings towards a person, to underscore the special nature of the relationship.
• Acceptance could be another motivation– the desire to have society give an official stamp of approval to their chosen lifestyle.
• Yet another motivation might be the financial benefits of marriage, such as entitlement to health insurance or to tax breaks.

Much as these feelings and wishes are understandable, not all feelings and wishes are officially granted by government.  Examining the four points above,

• Gay marriage does not help to produce children and future citizens.
• Underscoring the special nature of a relationship by calling it a marriage has never been done for any other group, so this would be an unusual precedent which would open the door for further variations on the definition of a marriage.  There is no mechanism for best friends, cousins, kindred spirits, or close colleagues to enter into “marriages” with special benefits, so it is not clear why persons of the same sex should be granted the right to call their relationship a “marriage” when it does not fulfill major aspects of the definition of marriage. There is the likelihood that other variations on marriage would soon be demanded by other groups.
• Acceptance is not something that can be regulated by law or demanded.  Demanding that religious America approve of the gay lifestyle is just as nonsensical as demanding that radicals approve of conservatism.  You cannot legislate what people think or believe.  A minority especially, is in no position to demand the approval of the majority.
• The practical and financial benefits of marriage should not offered to people who are not likely to produce future citizens. To use the common divisive liberal economic terms, Gays are most often not in the 99%, but in the 1%, so why do they need an extra break?  People who both work and have no children are often rolling in cash.  Their cash is being used to augment their personal lifestyle, not to raise future citizens, as the cash of couples with children is being used.

Why do Conservatives Oppose Gay Marriage?

Conservatives oppose gay marriage for several reasons.

• The short answer is that homosexual relationships are morally wrong, something that all major religions have taught for thousands of years.  Before somebody starts trashing religion as ignorant and dictatorial, let’s remind ourselves that 80% of America is religious.  Americans follow not a blind, ignorant brand of religion, but a well-educated, thinking brand of religion which realizes that the God Who exists is brilliant and is loving.  We realize that His mandates are not made to bind us, and to interfere with our pleasure, but to guide us for our own safety, towards a healthier and more stable life and society.
• Another reason conservatives oppose gay marriage is that a sexual relationship between members of the same sex is counter-intuitive, and unappealing to most people.  It is contrary to common sense, and to biology. You cannot legislate what people feel, any more than you can legislate whether they like broccoli.  Trying to force the majority of a population to act contrary to their common sense is an unrealistic demand.
• One of the most important reasons for opposing gay marriage is that children need both a mother and a father in the home for normal, undamaged development.   The best environment for the raising of children is the home of a married husband and wife:
• 
  In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental … at every phase of the life cycle … social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. … The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers.” – Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., Princeton University psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics
  Satinover argues that children need both a male and a female parent.  He does not believe that homosexuals make bad parents—he says that being raised by a pair of homosexuals, one male and one female, would not be damaging to a child.  But the absence of one gender, either father or mother is damaging.
  Satinover states that when two homosexuals of one gender try to adopt a child, they are neglecting the needs of the child, they are putting themselves and their own comfort before that of the child, and are rendering themselves unfit as parents by that action.
  

• Another reason to oppose gay activists is that they often go way beyond asking for tolerance.  Today, they demand the teaching of their agenda to all children.  In 2011, California mandated a pro-gay curriculum in the schools, with no option for parent opt-out.
  Gays don’t want conservatives teaching  traditional Judeo-Christian morality in schools, but they want the right to teach their own their brand of sexuality to the all children without exemption. There’s a pretty big double standard here.
  Videos of teaching homosexuality to third graders from It’s Elementary, a pro-gay film showing the pro-gay curriculum in elementary schools in Massachusettees, New York and elsewhere.
  Video of pro-homosexual presentation in a high school, where the speaker embarks on a vulgarity-laced rant against the Bible and its teachings on homosexuality, compelling 100 students to walk out, some of them in tears.  Who is bullying who?
  The latest legislation, California Senate Bill 1172, would make it a crime to counsel children not to be homosexual.  Passing on the Judeo-Christian values of 80% of America to our children would be illegal.  Not just for therapists, psychologists, and  counselors, but also for parents.
  This bears repetition: a crime for parents to counsel their children under 18 not to be homosexual.
  

  Illegal for parents to teach Judeo-Christian morality to their children?

  Are gays still wondering why conservatives oppose gay marriage?
  I would oppose Haagen Dazs ice cream if it was being shoved down my throat!

• Gay activism often offends people’s sensitivities.  Heterosexual, family-oriented, and religious parades never feature provocative costumes, floats, and dancers with an overt public in-your-face sexuality.  Gay parades do feature such attractions.  The vast majority of Americans do not approve of the early sexualization of children.  Sexuality is best left in the bedroom, and not on public display in front of children, who do not yet have the level of hormonal development to understand what is going on, nor the level of maturity to engage themselves in responsible sexual behavior.  Gays have no right to engage in such public exhibitions in front of the majority of Americans, who find them morally offensive.
  How can we publicly steer children toward sexual activity at early ages, when they are not mature enough to vote, to drive, or to drink alcohol?  The early sexualization of children is dangerous, and gay activists have no right to hold children hostage in this struggle.
• Unfortunately, the gay lifestyle is statistically associated with a very high frequency with a hedonistic promiscuity, which leads to the spread of life-threatening infections, and to the misery of the entire gay community and of those who love them.

Promoting the ideal

Society usually promotes the ideal:
We promote hard work, success, physical fitness, education, a healthy lifestyle, fidelity in marriage, and fiscal responsibility. We also promote marriage.

Nobody measures up in all areas, we all have our weak points.  But we don’t celebrate our weak points, or demand that others compensate for our weak points.  If I am overweight, I do not demand that children in school are encouraged to become overweight.  Nor do I demand that you or the government (less directly, you) pay for my Haagen Dazs ice cream or for the second airline seat (God forbid) I should ever need!

So, too with homosexuality.
Homosexuals suffer a malfunction that does not equip them to participate in the biological production of a family, or in the participation in a marriage.  Just like I cannot participate in the Olympics with my weight problem.  Or I cannot become an airplane pilot with my imperfect vision.

Homosexuals should accept this limitation humbly and gracefully, and find happiness within that limitation, just as all handicapped people learn to live with their limitations.
Homosexuals have no right to demand that the rest of society pretend that they are normal, or to demand that we teach all our children that homosexuality is a desirable condition, or to demand the privilege of participating in marriage, for which they are not qualified.

Homosexuals should not adopt children, and if they already have children, they should make every attempt to find a living situation where relatives of the opposite sex are available to serve as role models for their children.
Above all, they should live a chaste life style as an example to their children, as widows and widowers have done throughout the ages.

Bottom line

Here’s the bottom line:

Homosexuals, who constitute only about 1.7% of the United States population, cannot expect to dictate the morality and beliefs of 80% of (Christian) America, nor to reverse the moral standards that have been with us for millennia.

The initial desire of homosexuals to be tolerated like the rest of us (all imperfect) humans, like the fat, the lame (I fractured a bone in my foot last month!), and the old, was a reasonable goal.

But that goal has long ago been accomplished.  The people I know do not think worse of homosexuals than they do of the fat, the lame, or the old (that’s me).

But gay activists have gone too far.  Their demand that their handicap would be defined as the ideal and granted privileges, and that their (minority) definition of morality would be enforced on the entire population of the United States by law, casting all who practice Judeo-Christian values as criminals, is not going to fly.

Gay activists are in for some opposition now.
It has nothing to do with hate, or with homophobia, or with intolerance.
It has to do with our own freedom of religion and of thought, and our freedom to teach our values to our children.
In the U.S., you can’t shove anything down people’s throats by force– not even Haagen Dazs ice cream.  No matter how great the LGBT community thinks their lifestyle is, they cannot force it on everyone else, with or without the support of President Obama.  They are the 1.7%

The more they push, the more their moderate supporters will notice their radical agenda, and will abandon them.

or

Putin Sworn in as Russia’s President Amid Protests

or

“Attempts to shut people’s mouths with the help of a police baton are senseless and extremely dangerous.”

My photo op with Vlad Vladimirovich Putin

Putin Summarized

Putin’s Recent Power

Putin sworn in

Putin was President of Russia for two consecutive terms, from 2000 to 2008.  Due to constitutionally mandated term limits, he could not run for a third term.  His right-hand man Medvedev ran instead, and appointed Putin as his Prime Minister for the past 4 years.  Now, after “sitting out” one term, Putin is again eligible for two more terms, this time 6-year terms, through 2024. This “election” has effectively put Putin (and his right-hand-man Medvedev) in control of Russia for up to 24 years.

Protests Against Putin – “For Fair Elections”

Moscow Rally, December 2011

Crackdowns Continue

Helmeted police clubbing demonstrators

Today, May 7, 2012, about 1,000 protesters  tried to protest along Putin’s  motorcade route to the Kremlin.
Putin’s response was unprecedented security measures in the center of Moscow, where streets were closed to traffic and passengers were prevented from exiting subway stations.  Over 700 people have been detained.

The Passing of the “Nuclear Suitcase”

Putin's "Nuclear Suitcase" (1999)

The Kremlin ceremony of passing the “nuclear suitcase” from outgoing leader Dmitry Medvedev to Mr Putin was overseen by Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, news agency Interfax reported.

Widely seen as a relic of the Cold War stand-off between Moscow and Washington, the suitcase accompanies the Russian president on all his foreign trips. – The Australian

“Back in the U.S.S.R.”

USSR flag

In the light of above facts, how can anyone call Russia a democracy today?
We are back in the USSR.

I come from a Lithuanian family displaced by Soviet (U.S.S.R.) occupation, annexation, deportation of 120,000 people in 1940, followed by attempted sovietization of Lithuania.

I can only hope and pray for the Russian people today, as well as for the rest of us. An old Soviet brand of autocracy seems to be creeping back into the government of Russia, against the wishes of the Russian people, and under the guise of democracy.  Putin continues to quote democracy, while defying all democratic principles shamelessly.

Attempts to shut people’s mouths with the help of a police baton are senseless and extremely dangerous. -  Gennady Zyuganov, Communist Party leader.

Lithuania’s Take on Putin

Lithuanian Flag

Lithuania, previously a small, trampled neighbor of Russia’s,  now an independent  sovereign nation, has had much experience living at the foot (and at times under the foot) of  Russia.  For Lithuanians, watching developments in Russia is essential for survival.
The Lithuania Tribune has an interesting analysis, Now that Vladimir Putin is back, by Girnius.

Girnius points out:

Girnius

The ex-state security officer (Putin was in the KGB) is inclined to see hidden enemies and conspiracies where others only see coincidences. The level of suspicion of Putin and his supporters will only increase. Now that the opposition has become more active, it will not stop, maybe even get stronger, especially if the opinion of some observers happens to be true that the protests in response to the fabricated election results showed to the Russian people that the king was naked, that, despite the talks about the ruthless government of Putin and their own qualms, the Kremlin was vulnerable.

Even in the most favourable conditions it is naive to expect good relations with Russia. The imperial mindset is rooted so deeply in the ruling layers that Moscow simply doesn’t know how to communicate normally with its neighbours, especially the post-Soviet countries.

The caution expressed by Girnius towards Putin is not evident the the US.
As President Obama continues to pal up with Vladimir Putin behind out backs, half of America naively continues to support Obama.

.

Obama and Putin

America is Asleep

More Tyrants

Putin is not the only autocrat taking over and expanding powers of government in 2012.

The number of autocratic tyrants is increasing.

• France just elected a socialist, first time in 20 years. President Obama was among the first to congratulate Hollande for his victory, and has already  invited him to the White House.
• Anti-austerity (pro-spending) sentiments ousted the incumbent in Greece.
• Anti-austerity  candidates are leading in Italian local elections.
• At home, Obama continues to expand his own executive powers, issuing mandates and trampling and pressuring the other branches of government, both legislature and Supreme Court, to the point were some accuse him of greater tyranny than that of King George III in the 18th century. Obama’s most recent “crimes and misdemeanors” (violations of the U.S. Constitution, many pending court appeals) are staggering.

Election 2012;
Stay Tuned!

The November 2012 election will determine whether the United States reverses Obama’s present path toward expanding government power and increased spending.  Many interesting events are coming up very soon, which will determine America’s future:

• The Wisconsin recall election June 5, 2012 – will determine on a State level whether expanding government or austerity will be chosen by the American people.  Wisconsin’s election will influence similar battles coming up soon in other States.
• The Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare is also coming up in June — will President Obama’s largest attempt at expanding government control and mandates be upheld, or will it fail?  ObamaCare is also President Obama’s largest attempt at expanding Planned Parenthood and abortion.
• The Republican Primary nominee should also crystallize in June; by June, Mitt Romney may have the 1144 delegates needed for the nomination.  If not, there could be a very unpredictable and exciting convention.
• June also brings the release of the movie 2016, a movie produced by the producer of Schindler’s List, based on the New York Times best-seller by Dinesh D’Souza.  The movie documents theories of Barak Obama’s anti-colonialism (and his resulting hatred for America).  If this movie becomes a box office hit, it could landslide the election.
• Finally, November brings the actual election, which will determine whether Barak Obama remains President of the United States.

One Less Tyrant

Obama's Flexibility

Let us hope, work, and pray that Election 2012 is a fair election, that Americans realize what is at stake, and that Vladimir Putin’s buddy Obama loses the traitorous “flexibility” he promised Vladimir Putin after the election, because Obama has been removed from office.

.

The world needs one less tyrant. The world needs a model for responsible spending, a negation of the self-destructive abortion agenda, and a new and serious model for self-governance.  America, originally based on Judeo-Christian principles, still has the option to return to those Judeo-Christian principles and to provide that model for the world again.

.

May God Continue to Bless and Guide America!

or

Is the Republican Primary Over Yet?

The Presidential Race So Far

Mitt Romney - Barack Obama

Recent Gallup polls indicate a neck-in-neck competition between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama in the Presidential race.
Some are worried whether Romney will be able to beat President Barack Obama.
Others are worried whether Romney can be relied upon to repeal ObamaCare and refrain from issuing his own health mandates, if elected to the Presidency.

Solution?

Find someone more conservative and more popular than Mitt Romney!

Cardinal Timothy Dolan

Would anyone have guessed that according to the TIME Person of the Year Poll, Cardinal Dolan is way more popular than either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?

Cardinal Dolan’s Popularity

Cardinal Dolan placed #16 globally in the TIME Person of the Year Poll, and about #4 nationally.
Cardinal Dolan got almost twice as many votes as Barack Obama, and about 6-fold more votes than Mitt Romney.

More famous people who were less popular than Cardinal Dolan:

• Lady Gaga
• Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona
• Steven Colbert
• Hillary Clinton
• George Cluny
• Sandra Fluke
• Michelle Obama
• Queen Elizabeth II
• Rick Santorum
• Newt Gingrich

Is Anybody in the U.S. More Popular than Cardinal Dolan?

Ron Paul

The only presidential candidate more popular than Cardinal Dolan was Ron Paul.
The only American more popular than both Ron Paul and Cardinal Dolan was Jeremy Lin, a famous baseball player.

Who Else Beat Out Ron Paul and Cardinal Dolan in Popularity?

Not too many people beat Ron Paul and Cardinal Dolan.

Anonymous Recruiting Ad: "Legion"

.

Among those who did globally, were Vladimir Putin and the hackers called Anonymous, reputed to have hacked into the Vatican (and many other national websites).  Of course, in the case of Anonymous, there is the suspicion that they were not voted into #1 position globally, but could have hacked themselves into that position.

.

Impact on the Republican Primary

Whether these results could impact the Republican Primary, or simply be a reflection of national opinion which can impact the Republican Primary,  is a matter for speculation.

Clearly, neither I, nor anyone else, including Cardinal Dolan, are seriously considering Cardinal Dolan for President.  But this popularity poll is interesting in the light of my previous articles on President Obama and President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Dolan.  They have butted heads in an important religious freedom confrontation, and it’s interesting to see which President is so much more popular with Americans.

But back to serious consideration of the Republican Primary.

Most believe that the Republican Primary is all but over.
Some cling tenaciously to alternative possibilities.  These include a Ron Paul, whom many consider to be an ineffective eccentric.

Now, Ron Paul’s ability to top so many national figures in the TIME Person of the Year Poll indicates we should take him much more seriously than we have in the past.  He has beat Cardinal Dolan, Barack Obama, Lady GaGa, Steven Colbert, Hillary Clinton, Queen Elizabeth II, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

Could Ron Paul be the next giant political surprise?

Is the Republican Primary Over?

The Republican Primary is Not Yet Over!

There’s already been some discussion of whether the Republican Primary is over yet.
In the light of this TIME poll, and taking into consideration that politics is complicated and is often filled with unexpected surprises and results (like Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2008 by Barack Obama), in the light of these facts, we better keep an eye on Ron Paul, the pro-life doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies and now wants to be our President.

Ron Paul shows no signs of giving up.  He is actually making great strides towards taking over state Republican parties and delgations to the Republican National Convention.  His campaign shows no sign of giving up. As of last weekend, Ron Paul has locked up at least half the delegates in at least 3 states (Iowa, Minnesota & Washington).  He only needs the majority of delegates in 2 more states (like North Dakota and Maine) in coming weeks to be entered officially in the nomination at the Convention at Tampa, FL.

Romney, with only 847 if the 1144 delegates needed for the nomination (74%), will still have to contend with Ron Paul for quite some time.

Full Results of the TIME poll:

or

100 Minus 40 Equals 60!

Wisconsin State Journal’s (WSJ) reporting on the troubled infighting at St. Mary’s Catholic Church of Platteville is sadly lacking, and contributes to the confusion and discord going on at St. Mary’s right now.

The Problem

The initial event precipitating such extreme dysfunction at St. Mary’s, which has culminated in the closing of the parish school, was the fact that 40% of the parish demanded the firing of the conservative priests assigned to the parish.

News flash: This means that 60% of the parish APPROVED THE CONSERVATIVE PRIESTS, a fact that seems to be neglected by WSJ’s selective reporting and by dissidents at St. Mary’s.

Aside: The Church is not a democracy, and even if it was, the dissidents at St. Mary’s who disapprove of the conservative priests are in the minority.

The Problem Grows

The St. Mary’s dissident 40% went well beyond protest and demands.  They withheld giving, causing a parish financial crisis, which has led to the closing of the school.  Now they wish to blame the Bishop for the closing of the school.

How ridiculous would it be to refuse to give to Goodwill or to Salvation Army, then to upbraid them for inadequate service to the poor?  Or to refuse to pay taxes, then upbraid the government for not providing free services?  Or for a spouse to withhold their contribution to a household, then expect the mortgage to get paid?

Hostages Taken

Additional shocking fact: the liberal 40% of the parish is holding the rest of the parish hostage, demanding the removal of two priests as ransom, before they return giving to the previous level and prevent the closing of the school.  This was not covered adequately by the WSJ article.

Yes, 40% of the parish is holding 60% of the parish hostage, with everyone’s children in the balance.

.

Failure to Report

Bad reporting

Another neglected fact: that the Bishop’s 5-page letter actually focused almost exclusively on communication, problem solving and forgiveness.  Yet the WSJ article, particularly it’s headline, focused on one warning that was mentioned by the Bishop, at the end of the letter, after numerous appeals for cooperation in solving the problems of the parish.

Comparable secular headline:  Policeman DARES to warn 90 mph speeder that he may be ticketed next time! After pleading with the driver for 15 minutes to be more considerate of his own safety, and the safety of others, policeman DARES to state that next time the speeder will get ticketed.

Imbalanced Choice of “Experts”

Choice of “experts.”  The WSJ quoted two liberal “experts,” who used inflammatory wording such as “medieval” and “nuclear option” to characterize Bishop Morlino’s letter. WSJ failed to quote two equally conservative “experts.” This hardly makes for balanced reporting.

Little New Here

The story here is not that Bishop Morlino is threatening dissenters, as the WSJ headline implies.
The story here is old, a story of division between liberals and conservatives.
In every segment of  American society today, in every religion, and in politics, there is a divide between liberals and conservatives.
It is happening at the national level with discontent over ObamaCare, and at the State level, with attempts to recall Governor Walker. It is happening in every Church in America.

Some people believe in maintaining the old rules of Judeo-Christian morality (conservatives), while others want to define their own rules (liberals).

Gallup:
40% of Americans are continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.
If you split the moderates 50/50, that would be 57% conservative and 38% liberal.
Rounding off, 60% conservative, 40% liberal (the magic St. Mary’s number surfaces!)

Sadly, the liberals, still in the minority (somewhat like the 40% at St. Mary’s), are less patient, more angry, more demanding, and more willing to engage in questionable tactics, such as holding children’s education hostage in an effort to get their own (minority) way.

The Liberal/Conservative Struggle and Lilberal Tactics

I have written whole blog articles on Alinsky tactics; tactics that encourage the use of ANY method, moral or immoral, to achieve one’s goal.  This philosophy is old:  Machiavelli promoted it circa 1500AD : “ the ends justify the means.”

Translated into modern jargon, they say “I  am right, and I am SO right, that my rightness is more important than democracy, more important than truth or than fairness, and in order to achieve my perfect goal, I am allowed to trample the rights of others—to challenge democratic elections, to intimidate people to achieve my goal, to hold others hostage, and to force them to agree with me by hook or by crook.  Violence is even O.K. if it helps me to achieve my noble goals.

These tactics are being used by 40% of America nationally (Obama administration’s passing of OBamaCare via lies made to Stupak ) and locally (Madison teacher’s union demonstrations  and Governor Walker recalls, complete with approval of fraudulent Mickey Mouse petitions).

St. Mary’s Not Surprising

Why are we then surprised that there is one Wisconsin Catholic parish where the same liberal/conservative conflict occurred and where the liberals tried to use the same nasty tactics?

Too bad the WSJ cannot write a more balanced report on this issue.

A Final Note

So the Catholic Church is a group whose leaders are drawn from volunteers who pledge their lives

Devoting a lifetime to the spiritual needs of others

to the service of the Church so completely that they give up commitment to a family life, in order to allow a more complete dedication to the members of the Church and their spiritual needs.

And the increasingly secular society in which we live has a dwindling interest in participating in this mission.  Few encourage their children to enter this life of service by becoming priests or nuns.

However, in the face of dwindling numbers of priests, the “dilute” or “cafeteria” Catholics (who do not want to devote themselves completely to the way of life taught by the Church) still want service from the Church, still want the Bishop to staff their parishes with priests, and now even want to control what kind of virtually free priests they are given and “fire” the priests whose personalities they do not approve.

O.K.
Let’s get this straight.
I want a service.
I want someone to clean my house, or to teach my children, or to repair my house.
Send me a trained expert virtually for free.
They better do the job my way.
Even though I am a novice, and they are experts on the subject, with 8 years training or more. If I don’t approve of the job they are doing, I will “fire” them, and you better send me some new ones whom I like better.
If you don’t, I will get out the Alinsky tactics of lying, cheating, ridiculing, and maligning them.
And, of course, the liberal media will assist me in my tactics to undermine the people who are serving me for free.
Yet heaven forbid that anyone even suggest that the free sacrificial service to me is discontinued!

Shame on Everyone

Shame on St. Mary’s dissidents.
Shame on Wisconsin State Journal’s selective and inflammatory reporting.

They should both get on their knees before Bishop Morlino, ask his forgiveness for maligning him, and thank him for the sacrificial service he and the Catholic Church provide to Madison.

Here's a start- a WSJ reporter (guess which one?!), already on his knees before Bishop Morlino, contemplating the Bishop's words at the Religious Freedom Rally March 23rd. Now we just need an apology, and we're good to go!

Impossible, you say?
Maybe not…

So, last night, Romney swept 5 states and may have picked up as many as 200 delegates out of the 231 up for grabs.

Romney needs 1144 delegates to win.
As of last night, he has 844, according to the Associated Press.

Associated Press numbers:

Remaining Primaries:

May 8 – 132 delegates up for grabs, 55 from NC
May 15 – 63 delegates up for grabs, 35 from NE
May 22 – 81 delegates up for grabs, 45 from KY
If Romney got 100% of the delegates from May 8-22, the total would be 1120, still short of the 1144 he needs.
May 29 – 155 delegates up for grabs, all from TX
Jun 5 – 299 delegates up for grabs, 172 from CA
Jun 26 – 40 delegates up for grabs, all from UT

.

When will it be over?

Judging from the numbers above, at earliest it will be over on May 29, and only if Texas, which has winner-takes-all, goes for Romney.  Previously, Texas was likely to lean toward a Tea Party conservative like Santorum.
More likely, it will not be over until Jun 5, when California votes.
It is still possible that that this could go to a brokered convention, although much less likely after Tue, Apr 24th.

Answer: It will not be over until May 29 or perhaps June 5th.

Unless Newt and Paul are persuaded to quit before then.

An Interesting Possibility:

• Say Santorum has quit (so far, he has actually “suspended” his campaign).
• Say Gingrich quits this week (the possibility has been mentioned).
• Say Ron Paul sticks it out to the end, as he has promised.
• Then, say Romney falls short of the 1144 delegates he needs for the nomination (we’ve calculated above that he is likely to struggle to get to that number soon).

Will Ron Paul single-handedly be able to force Romney into a brokered convention?
Somebody should be interviewing Ron Paul and reporting on his intentions.

President Harding had only 20% of the leading candidate’s votes in 1920, yet he ultimately became President.
This will be an exciting election to watch.
Is it to be President Romney, President Paul, or President Obama?
Or will Gingrich stay, and Santorum un-suspend, and all go into a very exciting brokered convention?

The Bottom Line

Of course, probability is on the side of a Romney nomination and a Romney-Obama fight.
In which case, I plan to put all my energies behind Romney.

May God steer us wherever America needs to go.

or

Where is This Election Headed?

Hillary for President

.

April 22, 2008:

In April of 2008, Hillary and Barak were neck-in-neck.  Hillary won the Pennsylvania Primary.  Then the Clinton campaign raised another $10 million.
Hillary and Barak continued to battle it out, about 1 percentage point apart, as they had been throughout the primary campaign. Hillary had been the presumed nominee for quite some time before the primary, and many believed that she could not lose.

Obama was giving her a run for her money and edging her out, but only by about 1%, and neither Hillary nor supporters were ready to concede.  The race was close. Estimated Delegate Score Card over time can be found here.
The media was not talking about the primary “dragging out,” or about any need to “coalesce behind one candidate” yet.

The battle continued until  Obama had enough delegates to win the primary, and he only won by a very slim margin.  Hillary only conceded on June 7, 2008, 4 days after Barak secured enough delegates to claim the nomination on June 3, 2008.

Who is Leading the Republican Primary Race Today?

Short Answer: Depends on who’s counting and depends on how you classify the votes.

Who’s Counting?
If the mainstream media and the Republican establishment are counting (Romney supporters), Romney is the leading candidate.  If Conservatives,Tea Party, and evangelicals are counting, the race is way too young to call.  50-60% of the delegates have not yet been assigned, and anything could happen.  It’s much too early to tell.

Mitt Romney vs Conservatives Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul

How Do You Classify the Votes?
If all four candidates attract a random segment of the American vote, and Santorum’s recent bowing out spreads the votes evenly among all candidates, then Romney is winning.
But if Conservatives are wedded to voting for conservatives like Santorum/Gingrich/Paul, and moderates are voting for Romney, then the exit of one conservative candidate will swing all the conservative votes to the next conservative candidate, and not to Romney.  That is certainly the case with my vote: in the first place, my vote goes to Santorum.  Failing that, to Gingrich.  Failing that to Paul.  Finally, failing that, to Romney. By this argument (see chart below), Romney has only 23-25% of the vote so far, and the Conservatives have 16-26% of the vote.  Again, way too early to call.  Conservatives and Romney neck-in-neck, and we have not even heard from 49-61% of America yet!

Uncertainty in the Delegate Counts

The Media has been very quick to assign delegates which are in any way uncertain, uncommitted or disputed, to Romney.  Why? That will be discussed later below.  Those mainstream media counts can be found at Wikipedia.
Conservative counts, on the other hand are made by more stringent criteria.  The Santorum campaign count, for example, shows remarkably different numbers.

The bottom line is, however, that with 49 to 61% of the delegates still unassigned, and with conservative states like Texas (155 delegates available with winner-takes-all) still in the offing, the race if far from over, unless the media (and the Republican establishment) manages to convince everyone that the race is over before it really is.

Here is the range of numbers claimed by various sources, depending on your source of delegate counts and assignment of contested delegates:

.

Bottom Line Today:

Conservatives could be leading Romney by a much larger margin than Barak had on Hillary in 2008.

Lessons for us from 2008′s Democrat Primary

Why are some conservatives giving up?
Do they believe the media already?
Do they want to let the Republican establishment to steer the nomination, instead of the voters steering it?
It’s still early, and the race is far from over.
It’s not over until the fat lady sings (me). 

Stay in there, Rick/Newt/Ron!

A conservative coalition (if you go by Rick Santorum’s numbers) is leading with a slight edge against Romney so far, just as Barak was leading against Hillary in April 2008.
If you guys stay in there, you can prevent Romney from getting the 1144 delegates he needs for the nomination. BTW, Rick’s suspended campaign could also be un-suspended at a later date.

Then, when nobody has the required 1144 delegates, the process starts again at the brokered convention.  As the candidates with least delegates are eliminated, it will boil down to one conservative against Romney, and that conservative will have a great chance of defeating Romney. America is ready for a real change.

The delegate counts so far tell us that Americans are definitely waffling on Romney; they prefer a true conservative. Tea Party candidates, evangelicals, and many other conservatives are nervous about Romney’s liberal past and the reliability of his new found conservative “conversion.”
We’ve just had a taste of somebody who promises one thing but delivers quite another- Obama.
Not to say that Romney’s recent commitments to conservatism are not appreciated or are not genuine.
We’re just a bit nervous about how reliable Romney’s recent “conversion” to conservatism is, given his past.

Time to Put America Ahead of Personal Success

Rick/Newt/Ron should team up to stay in the race for the sole purpose of preventing Romney from acquiring the 1144 delegates he needs for nomination.  In 1920, there was a brokered convention where the previous underdog candidate eventually won. There would still be hope of putting a true conservative in the White House.  Even if a particular candidate is not that person, they will have contributed to the restoration of our great nation by contributing to the election of another conservative.

.

.

What Have You Got Against Mitt Romney?

Well, up front let us say that if Mitt Romney is nominated, we should all back him, campaign for him, and elect him as President of the United States.
Why? Because he has stated that he will oppose federal funding of abortion, that he will repeal ObamaCare, and that he will promote fiscal responsibility and limited government.  As opposed to Obama, who has stated (and done) the complete opposite.

But given Mitt Ronmey’s past positions, I’m just a bit nervous about how reliable Romney’s recent “conversion” to conservatism is.  In my mind, the Presidency should be given to someone we are very sure of.  More discussion of Romney at Committment to Truth; Romney vs Santorum.

Why mention “social issues” before “economic issues?”

“Social issues” (morality) come before economic issues because common sense and wisdom tell us what God already knows: that social issues drive the economics of a nation, and are the springboard from which a stable economy develops.  If you kill all your future citizens, your economy will not prosper.  If you overspend on an inefficient blundering health care system which provides free abortion, contraception and sterilization, your economy will take a blow. If you deny citizens freedom of conscience, sweeping Catholic hospital closings may result.  “Social issues” are the first domino with the power to take the entire economy down.

Judeo-Christian morality, on which conservatism and the Constitution of the United States are based, is a success manual given to us by a loving God, which provides the wisdom needed to avoid pitfalls both personal and national.

Why Would the Media or the Republican Establishment Want to Steer Us Towards Romney?

It’s pretty clear that Romney is much less conservative than the other Republican options.  He has supported abortion in the past, as well as supported socialized medicine, which became a template for ObamaCare.  Of course, the liberal media, as well as the liberal billionaires who fund the liberal media, would prefer Romney to the more conservative candidates, just in case Obama loses.  Hard to imagine that billionaires like George Soros, who make a hobby of attempting to steer global values with their accumulated billions, would not at least cover their bets partially in both parties, Democrat and Republican.

As for the Republican establishment, there are some who are comfortably entrenched in the less-than-perfect Republican establishment and who fear the effect that too much change and too many cuts may have on their comfort.  There are also those who fail to realize that the dynamics have changed in this election, that so many people are so much more committed and  involved in this election. That a giant has awoken.  They fear that they will lose voters in the middle if they offer a strong and  principled candidate who has demonstrated a reliable track record of conservatism.

Where are We Headed?

Time, and American voters, particularly today in the pirmaries, will determine where we are headed.
It is my hope that we still have a chance to elect a conservative to defeat Obama at the end of the day.
If not, my efforts will shift to praying for Romney’s strength and his commitment to the Judeo-Christian values on which this nation was founded. Romney has not been vetted or even questioned on his support of Judeo-Christian values. See Committment to Truth; Romney vs Santorum .

If voters have already jumped on board with Mitt Romney tonight, it will be a (premature) victory for the media and for the Republican establishment.  It will be a sad moment for those true conservatives who had hoped to return to the important “social issues” which determine the success of everything else.

May God bless and guide America!
May God bless and guide the Republican Primary winner!

Enough is Enough. I'm taking over.

Taking Over From Barak
Is Barak Obama Losing It?

The Big Reason Why Obama Must Be Replaced

Congressman Bart Stupak

President Barak Obama enlisted the Democrat swing votes for passing one of the largest and most far-reaching pieces of legislation in the history of the United States, ObamaCare, by assuring Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak and his Democrat allies in March of 2010, that federal funding of abortion (something opposed by 70% of America)  would be barred from ObamaCare.  As it turns out, the President of the United States was lying to his own party members, to manipulate them into passing legislation which the President misrepresented to them and to which the President later added autocratic mandates which wiped out all the promises he had made to Bart Stupak, to his allies, and to the American people.

ObamaCare was thus passed under false pretenses.

Stupak betrayed

Time was not allowed for anyone to read the (now 2,700 pages of) legislation; Congress was forced to vote on a bill they had not read.
And of course, not only abortion (abortifacient drugs), but also free contraception and free sterilization were later added to the services which taxpayers must fund under ObamaCare.
Religious exemptions were not given to those whose religious beliefs prohibited paying for abortion.
The ObamaCare budget was misrepresented; recent cost estimates are double those claimed in March 2010, and continue to grow.
The majority of states, as well as numerous organizations and individuals, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

ObamaCare alone, is sufficient reason to demand the removal of Barak Obama from the office of President of the United States.

United States Constitution Grounds for Impeachment:

Constitution of the United States

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. - U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4.

Felon

Definition of Misdemeanor

Dictionary.com: Misdemeanor:
1. A criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony. Examples of misdemeanors include traffic violations, disorderly conduct, trespass, reckless driving, public intoxication. Examples of felonies include perjury, check fraud, and  tax evasion, in addition to  treason, murder, assault, rape, and arson.
2. Any minor offense or transgression.

Barak Obama’s Offenses:

• Lying to members of Congress during the creation of legislation (resembles perjury).

• Interfering with the democratic process (resembles check fraud).
  • Defying the electorate in a democracy (resembles treason).

Lying to members of Congress to influence their votes on a piece of legislation which will affect the health and well-being of all the citizens of the United States, and inserting mandates into previously passed laws which violate the wishes (the votes) of 70% of the citizens in a democracy are more easily compared to felonies (perjury, check fraud, tax evasion) than to misdemeanors (traffic violations, trespass, reckless driving).

Either way, impeachable offenses.

The Most Recent Blitz of Crimes and Misdemeanors Committed by Barak Obama- just 4 weeks’ worth, due to space limitations:

Obama joking about the hot mic on which his treason was captured.

President Obama and his administration:

• Obama Bargained with the Russians for more time to betray his electorate, by reducing nuclear defenses after the election, not now.  When caught on a hot mic, the next day he joked with the Soviets about the hot mic, this time while the TV cameras were rolling.  TWICE.   Washington Times
• 

  Unanimous!

  President Obama submitted such a pathetic budget that it was turned down by the House of Representatives by a completely unanimous vote of  414-0; a record vote of no-confidence in the President in which every single Democrat opposed the President — something which was not reported by many major media networks, which are liberal, biased, and not interested in reporting the truth. (Googling “Obama budget 414-0″ turns up zero abc, nbc, msnbc, cnn reports. Wisconsin State Journal (Madison) buried the story with one sentence halfway through an article entitled “GOP-run House easily rejects bipartisan budget.”)

• Obama slammed Paul Ryan’s reasonable budget on Republican Primary voting day.  
• President Obama rushed to judgment in defense of a black young man killed by a neighborhood watchman,claiming the black boy looked like the Obama’s son, if Obama had had one. Later, it turned out the attack may have occurred the opposite way; Obama’s “son” was the aggressor who smashed the head of his victim repeatedly into the sidewalk. The President of the United States had rushed to inflame racial tensions before any of the facts were in.
  Media assisted in the misrepresentation; NBC was caught editing the audio to make the presumed white watchman (turns out he was actually Hispanic) to look racist.  CNN was caught “enhancing” the audio of the 911 call to make the watchman sound like a racist; a claim they are now retracting—Apparently the watchman said f***ing cold, NOT f***ing coon.
• The President bullied the Supreme Court on how they must vote for ObamaCare.  The Court had to demand a clarification of the White House’s comments.  Implications of President Obama’s statements about the Supreme Court:  Video.  Instead of retracting, Obama’s spokesman claimed that Obama’s Supreme Court Comments were “unremarkable.”
• 

  President Barack Obama addressing the Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House on April 4, 2012.

  Obama instructed the press on how they should report on him, telling them that lately their reporting was too balanced.

• President Obama accused the GOP-Majority House of an “Attempt to Impose a Radical Vision on Our Country”
• Obama misquoted scripture to a group of Christian clergy, referring to Jesus Christ as “a son of God,” and stating that “Jesus Knew Doubt.” A few years ago, Georgetown University covered up the name of Jesus to comply with Obama’s request before speaking there.
• The President accused Republican agenda of “poisoning our kids” with pollution .
• Obama tried to blame the Bush administration falsely for his own Obama administration’s GSA lavish $823,000 Las Vegas conference party scandal.
• President Obama made a second attempt at amending the first amendment, this time through House Minority Leader Pelosi, who suggested that the First Amendment be amended to allow regulation of political speech.
• The President lied about the domestic oil supply, stating that the US has only 2% of the world’s supply of oil, when in actual fact the U.S. geological survey shows that the US may hold 25% of the world’s untapped, undiscovered oil supply.
• Obama deflected responsibility for a massive US Secret Service agent misbehavior scandal in Columbia which has resulted in the firing/disciplining of 12 Secret Service employees and 11 military security staff.

Worst for Last

Most of the above shockers were not reported by the “mainstream” (actually liberal) media.

For example, Obama’s budget was rejected unanimously by the House of Representatives, and the “mainstream” media did not deem this worthy of reporting.  The “mainstream” media has, for the most part, become a radical arm of the Obama administration, which usually serves no purpose other than fanning Obama’s ego and promoting his reelection.

But today, the list of Obama’s recent crimes and misdemeanors has been topped by an item that even the uber-liberal New York Times and msnbc deemed worthy of reporting: the fact that Obama has been aggressively trying to circumvent Congress and to claim power for the Presidency– an executive unilateralism tactic which Obama himself had previously vehemently opposed.

Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals. - NY Times

Obama’s power grab and his disregard for the United States Constitution and for the will of the people has now become so noteworthy that even the liberal “mainstream” media has noticed.
Obama is either a madman, or a traitor.  Either way, everyone is noticing.

Enough is Enough

Madman or Traitor?

Enough is Enough. The urgency of removing Barak Obama from Office of the President of the United States increases with each passing hour.  He has reneged on virtually every promise he has made, he is discarding the Constitution which he had sworn to uphold and to protect, and he is rapidly steering us into a totalitarianism that makes the British rule of the 18th century pale by comparison.  It bears repeating – Obama is either a madman, or a traitor.

Obama’s Approval Index has plunged from the initial +30 in 2009 to -19 today, according to Rasmussen reports.  Today, 43% of Americans strongly disapprove of Obama (24% strongly approve), and 54% of Americans total disapprove (45% total approve).
Obama is on his way out. Despite the liberal media, the truth is getting through somehow, and Obama is on his way out.

May God bless and may God help America!

Barak just doesn’t know yet!