Think of a clay vessel; a jar. In Psalm 31:12 David recognises the source of his distress; he is a broken vessel: irreparable, useless, and therefore despised by all.
David has taken refuge in the Lord and knows the Lord's sufficiency.
Integrity can be viewed as the ability to remain useful because you retain what you were designed to hold. A ship must maintain it's watertight integrity, or sink because the water came in. Our integrity is perhaps the greatest witness to what we believe; our demonstrated fortitude as we drive on toward Christ without yielding to compromise. We will not leak under the pressure from bloodthirsty men who hate a man of integrity and seek to kill the upright.Proverbs 29:10
All good things are contained in and protected by, integrity. There is no room to cultivate sin in the heart of a man who is focused on his integrity in the Lord. Fear the Lord. Walk in all His ways. Love God. Serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul. Observe the Lord's commands and decrees. Simple to explain, difficult to apply, it is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 10:12-13. The behavior proscribes low and contemptible living. It also is the heart of integrity in a godly man.
If I have described the righteous integrity desired by the upright, it follows that evil also has it's own integrity. What is crucial to understand, then, is the absence of any place to stand that is not one, or the other.
The 'Creed of the Non-Commissioned Officer' Includes this statement: 'I will not compromise my integrity.' as a critical maxim. I see no room for an NCO or follower of Christ to avoid this succinct, fundamental principle in our daily walk.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Saturday, June 06, 2009
As Seen On Craigslist
Organ does not work (Burnsville)
Reply to: sale-wdr8v-1208447501@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-06-06, 12:09PM CDT
call Brent 612-501-6689 or e-mail back
* Location: Burnsville
* it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 1208447501
Maybe they should see a doctor if their organ doesn't work...
Reply to: sale-wdr8v-1208447501@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-06-06, 12:09PM CDT
call Brent 612-501-6689 or e-mail back
* Location: Burnsville
* it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 1208447501
Maybe they should see a doctor if their organ doesn't work...
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Kids And Cameras
I love the way Tim sees Anna; like someone about to happen.
Tim's figures cooperate for his lens...You never know what their little eye may capture but it is a good lesson on their perspective. Tim's photos show what interests him; what he thinks should be preserved. So far, he's not worrying about framing but he is concerned about proper focus. I give him tips and off he runs, coming back to ask more questions and download images that we talk about. People don't act when a kid points a camera at them and you see natural expressions like this one of Cheryl and I:
Our look was for our son, not his camera.Of course, Anna thinks the camera is a great toy, so I don't allow her to use it yet. She is currently in a 'fuss and whine' state but if it wasn't about the camera it would be about something else. She's just preparing me for when she's a teen.
Ah well, it is art today and the library. Tim has his piano lesson but at least there's no AWANA tonight and the kids will get to bed at a regular hour. Cheryl is pounding away at her schoolwork and loving it. I'll get all of the laundry we folded yesterday, put in closets (on hangers) and in drawers as well. The kids will actually do it after I demonstrate. I love it when a plan comes together. 'Star Trek' comes out Friday and I have the price of admission in a safe place.
I do love life.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Shrimp and Grits
Rick came over for our Monday morning coffee today; I made Shrimp and Grits that went down pretty well with the coffee. The kids and I have a full plate today. The weather is too, too nice to waste, so I'm going to start up the lawn tractor and assess the yard projects that need done. I want to see the new Star Trek movie with my brother this week - yes there was space before Star Wars.
There's laundry to work on; dinner to scheme out; phone calls; the dentist and every other task that has been hovering until Spring settled. Good thing I had a healthy breakfast because I'm going to need the energy today!
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Beautiful Morning For A Walk
We're taking the RRidgies on the Walk for Animals today. There's still time to shake some dust out of your pockets for the Animal Humane Society...
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Aha! It's A Good Sign.
In 2001, then Army Cheif of Staff Dennis Shinseiki (sp?) instituted a change to Army Uniform Policy that removed the black beret from the Ranger units and gave it to the entire Armywide force. His flawed rationale was that it would instill in the army a sense of esprit d'corp, borrowed from the beret's association with the Rangers. The black beret was to be his 'Legacy'.
Now it seems that soldiers, seasoned by war and emboldened by their real-world missions, are speaking their mind on the subject...
Stars and Stripes|by Ashley Rowland
SEOUL — They’re hot, sweaty and do nothing to keep the sun out of your eyes during a long formation.
Those are just a few of the reasons the Army should stop making soldiers wear wool berets outdoors, a group of delegates said Friday at the 8th Army’s annual Army Family Action Plan conference.
"Everyone is affected by the beret," said Sgt. Brad Stuckey, spokesman for a group that studied family-support issues. "This is an issue that your average soldier feels very strongly about."
The group recommended that soldiers be required to wear lighter, cotton-nylon blend patrol caps instead. They block the sun, absorb sweat and are somewhat water resistant, Stuckey said.
Soldiers had a list of complaints about the black beret. Among them:
*It doesn’t match the Army Combat Uniform, which has no black in its pattern.
*It has to be shaved, washed and dried on a lampshade or hat stand to hold its shape.
*It can cost nearly twice as much as a patrol cap, and there’s no standard way to wear it.
"You have seven people wearing it seven different ways," said Chief Warrant Officer 2 Jon Butler.
He said people have complained about the beret since it became part of the uniform in 2001.
"It’s been brought up a lot, but it’s consistently shot down," he said. "If it’s an issue enough to keep being brought up, then there’s definitely something behind it."
8th Army commander Lt. Gen. Joseph Fil said at the end of the conference that all of the ideas presented were good ones.
"We’re going to have to think about the one on the beret," he said. "That’s a hard sell."
Yeah, I suppose it is a hard sell, general; the armysenior leadership corporate managers don't give a rat's ass what the troops say about their gear if it affects the darling sentiment of a former general-in-command and severs him from his 'Legacy'. I'm laughing and it feels really good!
Now it seems that soldiers, seasoned by war and emboldened by their real-world missions, are speaking their mind on the subject...
Stars and Stripes|by Ashley Rowland
SEOUL — They’re hot, sweaty and do nothing to keep the sun out of your eyes during a long formation.
Those are just a few of the reasons the Army should stop making soldiers wear wool berets outdoors, a group of delegates said Friday at the 8th Army’s annual Army Family Action Plan conference.
"Everyone is affected by the beret," said Sgt. Brad Stuckey, spokesman for a group that studied family-support issues. "This is an issue that your average soldier feels very strongly about."
The group recommended that soldiers be required to wear lighter, cotton-nylon blend patrol caps instead. They block the sun, absorb sweat and are somewhat water resistant, Stuckey said.
Soldiers had a list of complaints about the black beret. Among them:
*It doesn’t match the Army Combat Uniform, which has no black in its pattern.
*It has to be shaved, washed and dried on a lampshade or hat stand to hold its shape.
*It can cost nearly twice as much as a patrol cap, and there’s no standard way to wear it.
"You have seven people wearing it seven different ways," said Chief Warrant Officer 2 Jon Butler.
He said people have complained about the beret since it became part of the uniform in 2001.
"It’s been brought up a lot, but it’s consistently shot down," he said. "If it’s an issue enough to keep being brought up, then there’s definitely something behind it."
8th Army commander Lt. Gen. Joseph Fil said at the end of the conference that all of the ideas presented were good ones.
"We’re going to have to think about the one on the beret," he said. "That’s a hard sell."
Yeah, I suppose it is a hard sell, general; the army
So, You Probably Already Know This, But...
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure,
when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.
-Patrick Henry
I am adamantly opposed to any legislation that tends to undermine the U.S. Constitution. I teach my children that laws enacted in conflict with Constitutional directive 'No law shall be made which...' are necessarily illegal; it is our duty to disobey and work to remove them. It follows that any elected legislator that sponsors or votes for such a bill is both a traitor to their country and a criminal under the legitimate law.
I believe that 'Hate Crime' laws are unnecessary, excessive in scope and in direct conflict with the First Amendment to our constitution. It is wrong-headed to create special classes of citizens for any purpose; that is simply not the American philosophy. I allow no provision in my own conduct for the existence of this silliness. Anyone who acts or speaks like a bigot is an idiot; if they cross the line, there is sufficient protection under the law without special protection for anyone. When the unborn are given the same consideration as everyone else, call me.
It will only be a matter of time before all of my unique character is outlawed; this will have no effect upon my conduct; those new laws can carry no weight and I will ever resist, dissent and object. As my good friend Taylor Smith says: "I'll take my freedom and guns; you can keep the change." I figure that if it is not a fight today over fundamental freedoms, it will be a fight tomorrow over the right to buy butter or steak.
To those who would imagine that we will submit to the over-reaching grasp of our freedom I say. "Anyone who is unwilling to sacrifice and resist, earns their shackles and must be happy in them."
As for me? You can give 'er a try but you'd best bring a lunch and you'll still need to warm up your ass-kissin' lips.
when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.
-Patrick Henry
I am adamantly opposed to any legislation that tends to undermine the U.S. Constitution. I teach my children that laws enacted in conflict with Constitutional directive 'No law shall be made which...' are necessarily illegal; it is our duty to disobey and work to remove them. It follows that any elected legislator that sponsors or votes for such a bill is both a traitor to their country and a criminal under the legitimate law.
I believe that 'Hate Crime' laws are unnecessary, excessive in scope and in direct conflict with the First Amendment to our constitution. It is wrong-headed to create special classes of citizens for any purpose; that is simply not the American philosophy. I allow no provision in my own conduct for the existence of this silliness. Anyone who acts or speaks like a bigot is an idiot; if they cross the line, there is sufficient protection under the law without special protection for anyone. When the unborn are given the same consideration as everyone else, call me.
It will only be a matter of time before all of my unique character is outlawed; this will have no effect upon my conduct; those new laws can carry no weight and I will ever resist, dissent and object. As my good friend Taylor Smith says: "I'll take my freedom and guns; you can keep the change." I figure that if it is not a fight today over fundamental freedoms, it will be a fight tomorrow over the right to buy butter or steak.
To those who would imagine that we will submit to the over-reaching grasp of our freedom I say. "Anyone who is unwilling to sacrifice and resist, earns their shackles and must be happy in them."
As for me? You can give 'er a try but you'd best bring a lunch and you'll still need to warm up your ass-kissin' lips.
Federal Thought Crimes Bill, H.R. 1913
Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) have quietly re-introduced the federal thought crimes bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling "hate speech" laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. The bill is expected to be marked up Wednesday before the full House Judiciary Committee.
Under the 14th Amendment, victims of violent crime are currently afforded equal protection under the law regardless of sexual preference or proclivity. If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that. It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., "gay" and lesbian "sexual orientation" or cross-dressing "gender identity").
Of course, this entire concept flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or "transgender" and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.
There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not currently receive equal protection under the law. In fact, you need only look to the most famous "hate crime" of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard's murder was not a "hate crime" by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard's murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible).
Likewise, the murderer of Mary Stachowicz – a devout Catholic grandmother who was brutally killed by a homosexual man in Chicago merely for sharing the Bible – was also given a life sentence. The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory "hate crimes" legislation.
Yet, proponents of H.R. 1913 claim it's needed to curb an epidemic of so-called "hate crimes" committed against homosexuals and those who suffer gender identity disorder. This is a lie that is knowingly and intentionally cultivated by a very well funded and intrinsically deceptive homosexual lobby. The alarmist propaganda simply doesn't square with the facts.
According to the latest FBI statistics, in 2007 there were about 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the U.S. Of those, only 1,512 were reported as "hate crimes" motivated by "sexual orientation" bias. Over two thirds of those were allegations of "hateful" words, touching, intimidation, pushing or shoving. There were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by "sexual orientation" bias nationwide. In each case, where appropriate, offenders were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and victims were afforded the exact same justice guaranteed every other American.
The entire push for federal "hate crimes" legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high-profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very "hate crime" (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated "hate crimes" continue to pile up.
So, if proponents of H.R. 1913 are neither justified nor motivated by an actual need for the bill – as clearly demonstrated – then what drives them? The answer is twofold. First, passage of "hate crimes" legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable "suspect class" characteristics such as skin color or a person's true gender.
This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publicly express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as "homophobic bigots" to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.
In short, this bill places newfangled "gay rights" in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It's a zero sum game and someone has to lose. Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.
But the threat is not just some shadowy phantom looming in the near future. It's a clear and present danger. While debating the notion of "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" in the last Congress, Representative Arthur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of "inducement" to violence.
Furthermore, under existing criminal statute if H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a "hate crime" to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a "gay pride" parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual's shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony "hate crime."
But the Christian needn't even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in "apprehension of bodily injury" by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony "hate crime." The FBI has included mere words – "insults" and "intimidation" – in calculating "hate crimes" statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there's every reason to believe they'll subjectively consider "insults" and "intimidation" (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting "hate crimes."
Yes, it's a brave new world and with H.R. 1913 – among other things – a once free America has moved, both literally and figuratively, a quarter of a century beyond Orwell's 1984.
Matt Barber onenewsnow 'Perspectives'
Under the 14th Amendment, victims of violent crime are currently afforded equal protection under the law regardless of sexual preference or proclivity. If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that. It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., "gay" and lesbian "sexual orientation" or cross-dressing "gender identity").
Of course, this entire concept flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or "transgender" and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.
There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not currently receive equal protection under the law. In fact, you need only look to the most famous "hate crime" of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard's murder was not a "hate crime" by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard's murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible).
Likewise, the murderer of Mary Stachowicz – a devout Catholic grandmother who was brutally killed by a homosexual man in Chicago merely for sharing the Bible – was also given a life sentence. The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory "hate crimes" legislation.
Yet, proponents of H.R. 1913 claim it's needed to curb an epidemic of so-called "hate crimes" committed against homosexuals and those who suffer gender identity disorder. This is a lie that is knowingly and intentionally cultivated by a very well funded and intrinsically deceptive homosexual lobby. The alarmist propaganda simply doesn't square with the facts.
According to the latest FBI statistics, in 2007 there were about 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the U.S. Of those, only 1,512 were reported as "hate crimes" motivated by "sexual orientation" bias. Over two thirds of those were allegations of "hateful" words, touching, intimidation, pushing or shoving. There were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by "sexual orientation" bias nationwide. In each case, where appropriate, offenders were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and victims were afforded the exact same justice guaranteed every other American.
The entire push for federal "hate crimes" legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high-profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very "hate crime" (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated "hate crimes" continue to pile up.
So, if proponents of H.R. 1913 are neither justified nor motivated by an actual need for the bill – as clearly demonstrated – then what drives them? The answer is twofold. First, passage of "hate crimes" legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable "suspect class" characteristics such as skin color or a person's true gender.
This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publicly express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as "homophobic bigots" to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.
In short, this bill places newfangled "gay rights" in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It's a zero sum game and someone has to lose. Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.
But the threat is not just some shadowy phantom looming in the near future. It's a clear and present danger. While debating the notion of "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" in the last Congress, Representative Arthur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of "inducement" to violence.
Furthermore, under existing criminal statute if H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a "hate crime" to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a "gay pride" parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual's shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony "hate crime."
But the Christian needn't even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in "apprehension of bodily injury" by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony "hate crime." The FBI has included mere words – "insults" and "intimidation" – in calculating "hate crimes" statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there's every reason to believe they'll subjectively consider "insults" and "intimidation" (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting "hate crimes."
Yes, it's a brave new world and with H.R. 1913 – among other things – a once free America has moved, both literally and figuratively, a quarter of a century beyond Orwell's 1984.
Matt Barber onenewsnow 'Perspectives'
"Unnecessary and Inflammatory" ??
Republican opponents of the controversial "hate crimes" legislation that passed the House Judiciary Committee today claim Democratic supporters of the measure are not being clear about who exactly will receive special protections under the bill.
By a 15-12 vote, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913) was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, paving the way for a vote in the full House next Wednesday. The bill would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.
Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) told Democratic members that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are vague terms that need to be specifically defined since courts will be analyzing those terms.
"This panel -- this Judiciary Committee, including the authors of this bill -- either don't know or won't say what the definitions are, for example, [of] gender identity [or] sexual orientation," King stated. "Does sexual orientation...include transvestism? Does it include transgendered? Are those two that are also part of sexual orientation?" he asked. "And if so, if that's two of 30 [orientations], what are the other 28 that are part of sexual orientation?"
Openly lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) responded to King by noting that gender identity is defined in the bill as "actual or perceived gender-related characteristics," but acknowledged that sexual orientation is not defined in the legislation.
"The underlying hate crimes bill or law that has been in existence since the late 60s," she said, "does not define the terms race, color, national origin, or um..."
King interjects: "That's because they're immutable characteristics."
Although it was not included in the bill, Baldwin said her definition of sexual orientation would be "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality."
King offered an amendment that would have barred pedophiles from receiving special protection under the hate crimes bill. The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote 13-10. Congresswoman Baldwin said that amendment was "unnecessary and inflammatory."
A conservative activist closely monitoring the hate crimes" legislation pending before a House committee says although the measure still poses a threat to the religious freedom of Christians who speak out publicly against homosexuality, the foundation of the bill has been removed.
Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee had planned on holding a vote on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act yesterday, but due to a large amount of Republican amendments to the bill, the vote was postponed until this morning. The bill would add homosexuals and transgender people to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, notes that Democrats were forced to eliminate a key portion of the bill -- the findings section.
"We exposed the fact that they claimed, they have fraudulent claims that there was an epidemic of hate against homosexuals and drag queens, transgenders -- and that claim was the foundation of the bill," she notes. "They claimed that homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution, and that perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against these gays, lesbians, and transgenders, and that they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. We nailed them on the fact that that's a lie."
Lafferty says during yesterday's markup hearing, Democrats neglected to mention that in America -- a country of 300 million people -- there have been only 1,521 cases of hate against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people.
By a 15-12 vote, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913) was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, paving the way for a vote in the full House next Wednesday. The bill would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.
Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) told Democratic members that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are vague terms that need to be specifically defined since courts will be analyzing those terms.
"This panel -- this Judiciary Committee, including the authors of this bill -- either don't know or won't say what the definitions are, for example, [of] gender identity [or] sexual orientation," King stated. "Does sexual orientation...include transvestism? Does it include transgendered? Are those two that are also part of sexual orientation?" he asked. "And if so, if that's two of 30 [orientations], what are the other 28 that are part of sexual orientation?"
Openly lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) responded to King by noting that gender identity is defined in the bill as "actual or perceived gender-related characteristics," but acknowledged that sexual orientation is not defined in the legislation.
"The underlying hate crimes bill or law that has been in existence since the late 60s," she said, "does not define the terms race, color, national origin, or um..."
King interjects: "That's because they're immutable characteristics."
Although it was not included in the bill, Baldwin said her definition of sexual orientation would be "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality."
King offered an amendment that would have barred pedophiles from receiving special protection under the hate crimes bill. The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote 13-10. Congresswoman Baldwin said that amendment was "unnecessary and inflammatory."
A conservative activist closely monitoring the hate crimes" legislation pending before a House committee says although the measure still poses a threat to the religious freedom of Christians who speak out publicly against homosexuality, the foundation of the bill has been removed.
Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee had planned on holding a vote on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act yesterday, but due to a large amount of Republican amendments to the bill, the vote was postponed until this morning. The bill would add homosexuals and transgender people to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, notes that Democrats were forced to eliminate a key portion of the bill -- the findings section.
"We exposed the fact that they claimed, they have fraudulent claims that there was an epidemic of hate against homosexuals and drag queens, transgenders -- and that claim was the foundation of the bill," she notes. "They claimed that homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution, and that perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against these gays, lesbians, and transgenders, and that they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. We nailed them on the fact that that's a lie."
Lafferty says during yesterday's markup hearing, Democrats neglected to mention that in America -- a country of 300 million people -- there have been only 1,521 cases of hate against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Visit To England
An American tourist in London decides to skip his tour group and explore the city on his own. He wanders around, seeing the sights, occasionally stopping at a quaint pub to soak up the local culture, chat with the locals, and have a pint of bitter. After a while, he finds himself in a very nice neighbourhood with big, stately residences. No pubs, no stores, no restaurants, and worst of all no public restrooms. However, he really has to go, after all those Guinness's. He finds a narrow side street, with high walls surrounding the adjacent buildings and decides to use the wall to solve his problem. As he is unzipping, he is tapped on the shoulder by a London bobby, who says, "Sir, you simply cannot do that here, you know."
"I'm very sorry, officer," replies the American, "but I really have to go, and I just can't find a public restroom."
"Ah, yes," said the bobby, "just follow me".
He leads the American to a back delivery alley to a gate, which he opens. "In there," points the bobby, "Whiz away sir, anywhere you like."
The fellow enters and finds himself in the most beautiful garden he has ever seen. Manicured grass lawns, statuary, fountains, sculptured hedges, and huge beds of gorgeous flowers, all in perfect bloom. Since he has the policeman's blessing, he relieves himself and feels much more comfortable. As he goes back through the gate, he says to the bobby "That was really decent of you. Is that what you call English hospitality?"
"No sir...", replied the bobby, "that is what we call the French Embassy."
"I'm very sorry, officer," replies the American, "but I really have to go, and I just can't find a public restroom."
"Ah, yes," said the bobby, "just follow me".
He leads the American to a back delivery alley to a gate, which he opens. "In there," points the bobby, "Whiz away sir, anywhere you like."
The fellow enters and finds himself in the most beautiful garden he has ever seen. Manicured grass lawns, statuary, fountains, sculptured hedges, and huge beds of gorgeous flowers, all in perfect bloom. Since he has the policeman's blessing, he relieves himself and feels much more comfortable. As he goes back through the gate, he says to the bobby "That was really decent of you. Is that what you call English hospitality?"
"No sir...", replied the bobby, "that is what we call the French Embassy."
Funny Irish Joke
Six retired Irishmen were playing poker in O'Leary's apartment when Paddy Murphy loses $500 on a single hand. He clutches his chest and drops dead at the table. Showing respect for their fallen brother, the other five continue playing standing up. Michael O'Connor looks around and asks, "Oh, me boys, someone got to tell Paddy's wife."
"Who will it be," the group asked?
They decided to draw straws and Liam Gallagher picks the short one. They tell him to be discreet, be gentle, and don't make a bad situation any worse. "Discreet...I'm the most discreet Irishmen you'll ever meet...discretion is my middle name...leave it to me."
Gallagher goes over to Paddy Murphy's house and knocks on the door. Mrs. Murphy answers and asks, "What do you want, Gallagher?"
Gallagher says, "Your husband just lost $500 and is afraid to come home."
"Tell him to drop dead," says Mrs. Murphy's.
"OK, I'll go tell him," says Gallagher.
"Who will it be," the group asked?
They decided to draw straws and Liam Gallagher picks the short one. They tell him to be discreet, be gentle, and don't make a bad situation any worse. "Discreet...I'm the most discreet Irishmen you'll ever meet...discretion is my middle name...leave it to me."
Gallagher goes over to Paddy Murphy's house and knocks on the door. Mrs. Murphy answers and asks, "What do you want, Gallagher?"
Gallagher says, "Your husband just lost $500 and is afraid to come home."
"Tell him to drop dead," says Mrs. Murphy's.
"OK, I'll go tell him," says Gallagher.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Texas takes aim at Planned Parenthood
The state of Texas has shut down four Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in San Antonio that were operating without licenses.
Clinic officials say it is a matter of miscommunication, claiming that they were told no licenses were needed because they do not conduct surgical abortions. Jonathon Saenz of Free Market Foundation does not accept that.
"The Department of State Health Services has made it very clear," Saenz points out. "They conducted an investigation. They're aware of the law and how it works and how it should be applied, and they've made a clear finding that Planned Parenthood is in violation of the law." members of the legislature are calling for an investigation on that level.
"They're well within their right to demand that....that's what our state-elected officials are supposed to do," he argues. "They're supposed to be looking out for the way these types of entities are doing business, particularly in light of the fact that they receive a significant amount of tax dollars."
Saenz is convinced more investigations of Planned Parenthood operations in Texas will be conducted.
Clinic officials say it is a matter of miscommunication, claiming that they were told no licenses were needed because they do not conduct surgical abortions. Jonathon Saenz of Free Market Foundation does not accept that.
"The Department of State Health Services has made it very clear," Saenz points out. "They conducted an investigation. They're aware of the law and how it works and how it should be applied, and they've made a clear finding that Planned Parenthood is in violation of the law." members of the legislature are calling for an investigation on that level.
"They're well within their right to demand that....that's what our state-elected officials are supposed to do," he argues. "They're supposed to be looking out for the way these types of entities are doing business, particularly in light of the fact that they receive a significant amount of tax dollars."
Saenz is convinced more investigations of Planned Parenthood operations in Texas will be conducted.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Hitler, Sanger, Pelosi and Eugenics
Here it is.
Not to put too fine a point on it but Nancy Pelosi is chewing Adolf Hitler's cud.
What do I have against Planned Parenthood? Aren't they just a public health organization serving the needs of unwed poverty moms? In a word, Oh, Hell no.
Here's what the founder of Planned Parenthood had to say about Black People and Immigrants: "... human weeds," "reckless breeders," "spawning ... human beings who never should have been born."
-- Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder and editor of The Birth Control Review from 1917 to 1938
Maggie Sanger was a familiar of Adolph Hitler and the likely author of his genocidal programs. Some Sanger quotes:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." (Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12)
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order." Sanger said. (Birth Control in America, p. 23)
Lovely woman...
God, however, had a different thought on marriage: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)
In 1937, Sanger gave a speech on behalf of those "too inarticulate to speak for themselves." In her speech, she said the following about blocking the procreation of so-called undesirables:
"(It) makes possible the spread of scientific knowledge of the elements of sound breeding. It makes possible the creation of a new race; a new generation brought into this world consciously conceived. It makes possible the breeding out of human weeds-the defective and criminal classes- (and) the breeding in of the clean, strong and fit instruments to carry the torch of human destiny."
Like Lesbians?? Something wrong with that logic stream...
Margaret Sanger’s following two-step plan (which she proposed to the U.S. Congress) to establish a "Parliament of Population" is also well documented in the pages of Intellectual Morons:
1. To "control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics."
2. To "take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms…"
Sanger also had a pretty negative view of Australian, Jewish, and Italian families. She called aboriginal Australians "the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development." She said the following of the "Jewish people and Italian families":
"(They) are filling the insane asylums, (they) are filling the hospitals and filling our feeble-minded institutions, (they) are the ones the tax payers have to pay for the upkeep of, and they are increasing the budget of the State, the enormous expense of the State is increasing because of the multiplication of the unfit in this country and in the State."
Not to put too fine a point on it but Nancy Pelosi is chewing Adolf Hitler's cud.
What do I have against Planned Parenthood? Aren't they just a public health organization serving the needs of unwed poverty moms? In a word, Oh, Hell no.
Here's what the founder of Planned Parenthood had to say about Black People and Immigrants: "... human weeds," "reckless breeders," "spawning ... human beings who never should have been born."
-- Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder and editor of The Birth Control Review from 1917 to 1938
Maggie Sanger was a familiar of Adolph Hitler and the likely author of his genocidal programs. Some Sanger quotes:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." (Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12)
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order." Sanger said. (Birth Control in America, p. 23)
Lovely woman...
God, however, had a different thought on marriage: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)
In 1937, Sanger gave a speech on behalf of those "too inarticulate to speak for themselves." In her speech, she said the following about blocking the procreation of so-called undesirables:
"(It) makes possible the spread of scientific knowledge of the elements of sound breeding. It makes possible the creation of a new race; a new generation brought into this world consciously conceived. It makes possible the breeding out of human weeds-the defective and criminal classes- (and) the breeding in of the clean, strong and fit instruments to carry the torch of human destiny."
Like Lesbians?? Something wrong with that logic stream...
Margaret Sanger’s following two-step plan (which she proposed to the U.S. Congress) to establish a "Parliament of Population" is also well documented in the pages of Intellectual Morons:
1. To "control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics."
2. To "take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms…"
Sanger also had a pretty negative view of Australian, Jewish, and Italian families. She called aboriginal Australians "the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development." She said the following of the "Jewish people and Italian families":
"(They) are filling the insane asylums, (they) are filling the hospitals and filling our feeble-minded institutions, (they) are the ones the tax payers have to pay for the upkeep of, and they are increasing the budget of the State, the enormous expense of the State is increasing because of the multiplication of the unfit in this country and in the State."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
