Thursday, June 26, 2008

Children Growing Up Confused

I am not sure how to go about commenting on this piece by other than to say click HERE.

WARNING: The video and photos may be offensive to many. Proceed with caution!!

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Schools Ban Father's Day Cards

Six schools in Scotland banned any projects that would focus on making cards for Father's Day which was celebrated last Sunday. With a rise in the number of single family households and same-sex "families" in Scotland, many schools there thought it would be a good idea to stop making the cards in the name of "sensitivity" for those without fathers.

Read full story HERE.
Do to the fact that same-sex "marriages" "legally" ensure that children are deprived of either a mother or a father, it is not a surprise that the militiant homosexual community wants to futher destroy traditional marriages and families by taking out the cornerstone of a family which is a mom and a dad. By futher inching their way into everyone's lives without their consent, the radical homosexual community wants you to cleary understand that a family is not a family just because of a mother and a father, but only because of love and selfish sexual desires.
As George Dent wrote in his article, "The Defense of Traditional Marriage" in The Journal of Law and Politics (University of Virginia, 2001), Vol. XV, No. 4, 590-591.:
"Some argue that love is the only valid requisite for marriage. ...Love takes many forms. C.S. Lewis distinguished family love, affection, erotic desire, friendship, and compassion. All can be good, but compassion is not deemed a basis for marriage. Close relatives often love each other but cannot marry. One who is married may love a third party more that one's spouse, but one cannot marry the third party. Children can love but cannot marry. Many people love pets, but they cannot marry them. Hence, homosexual love is not the only love ineligible for marriage. Indeed, many forms of sexual love, such as pederasty, adultery, bestiality, and incest, are criminal even in states that permit homosexual acts."
Click HERE to understand why fathers are important for a healthy family.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Culture Clash

Harriet Bernstein went on a retreat eight years ago and met her future partner Luisa Paster. Bernstein and Paster formalized their love for one another, a few months after New Jersey legalized civil unions for same-sex partners. They in turn asked to be unionized at a Methodist retreat center, formally known as Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The association turned their request down based on their religious belief that marriage is between a man and a women and not between two lesbian lovers.

"When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. (the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the group's administrator) says there was a theological principle at stake."
Read full story HERE.
Although this story has been around for awhile and most of you may or may not have read about it, the precedent it sets is quite dangerous and very much so unconstitutional. Will the teachings in any church regarding the sinful nature of homosexuality be the only thing that will be protected under the Constitution or will religious institutions, and their accompanying estates, have to be subjected to the same rules as any public institution or property? It sounds to me that this case will potentially force ALL religious institutions to reside over same-sex "marriages"/unions or face a civil rights lawsuit. So, in turn freedom of religion, along with traditional marriages and families, will become obsolete unless we ALL speak up and fight this rediculousness.
Jennifer Pizer, a senior counsel at Lambda, a gay rights law group, painted a picture for everyone as if we were all born yesterday when she said:
"Groups that are worried that something new will interrupt their ability to function the way they are functioning will soon see that [gay marriage] will not change the rules that govern their public activities. Those rules have been in place and work just fine."
And why then, Ms. Pizer, are religious institutions being attacked and redefined to fit the sexual desires of same-sex couples? Sorry, we are a little bit smarter than that.
Read the article in which Ms. Pizer's comments are found by clicking HERE.
I only have two questions:
1. Are religious institutions under attack for their beliefs regarding same-sex "marriages" and why can they not adhere to these beliefs when making decisions about the use of their property for sinful events, such as same-sex "marriages"?
2. Is the Methodist organization infringing on public order in ways detrimental to society with their decision and if so how?

Thursday, June 05, 2008

A-1: For The Verbally Filleted!

John Haskins of the Underground Journal had some eye-opening facts for Gary, one of my many readers of my blog. Gary claimed that the U.S. Judiciary System can "expand" our laws and that "when a court makes a ruling that interprets the law, the legislative and executive branch are required to enforce that law." Well, Mr. Haskins gave Gary an educational lesson on what our court system can and CAN NOT do in regards to enforcing laws when it comes to controversial topics such as same-sex "marriages".

Gary wrote the following on May 22nd, 2008 in my post titled "Still Illegal Coast to Coast".
"The judicial branch does not technically make law, but by interpreting current law, their rulings (obviously) change how law is applied."
John Haskins:
"No, not "obviously" to the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, (and)many top professors of jurisprudence and anyone who bypasses the lies of mercenary ABA-approved courtroom prostitutes (who) dare to read our constitutions.
It is mainly cowardly pseudo-conservative lawyers and law professors who prop up these lies so adamently and stubbornly. A court opinion is an impotent abstraction, utterly without force. In itself it changes nothing. Constitutionally, nothing will change unless and until the executive (or the legislative branch in the case of opinions about the constitutionality of existing statutes) agrees and acts accordingly. The executive branch has the EXCLUSIVE power of the sword and the Legislature has the EXCLUSIVE power of the purse. Even the most liberal justices in communist states like Massachusetts freely admit this. They have recently ruled that the executive branch MUST continue to enforce the statutes until they are revoked by the LEGISLATURE!
Every member of the executive branch from governors and presidents down to town clerks swear a solemn oath in God's Holy name to uphold state and federal CONSTITUTIONS and to execute the STATUTES as written. Licensed attorneys swear the same oath! No one anywhere swears any oath to execute judge's rulings and opinions. In every case the executive branch is absolutely and solemnly obliged to determine whether a court finding is in conformity with the Constitution and statutes or not. If not, it is legally a dead opinion, even if the executive branch believes and acts otherwise."
"A court's ruling can "expand" the law. This isn't really something to debate since it's happened over and over again."
John Haskins:
"It's not something for courtroom prostitutes to debate because they have lied to themselves so many times they can't think straight. No matter how smart you think you are or how "conservative" you think you are Gary, you are a robotic, mindless drone for the totalitarian left.
The fundamental distinction between what the law is and what merely happens on the street because members of the executive branch use the power of the sword is being blurred by cowardly, mercenary fake "conservatives" who are ruthlessly subverting constitutional rule of law because they want only to be free to pursue their own monetary and professional advancement while still being admired as principled "conservative" heroes.
A court has absolutely zero power to "expand" the law. The day they pretend to "expand" the law to sieze your property Gary, your children or you as a person and deprive YOU of your unalienable rights as enumerated in the Supreme Law of the United States and the fifty states will be the day your absurd, self-serving pseudo-pragmatism will come to a sudden halt."
"Also, based on some of your (Scia's) conclusions, I'm guessing that you're not a law professor."
John Haskins:
"Also, based on your cowardly lies and confusion of dictatorship with the rule of law, I'm guessing you are a lawyer. As a nationally known former law dean told me "The last people to ask about constitutions and separation of powers are lawyers. Most are brainwashed and have no clue."
"And marriage has been termed a "civil right" (or "fundamental" right) for quite a while. While the court cases obviously don't reference marriage for gays and lesbians, the decisions do refer to the right to marry as a civil right. So, there's your answer. This isn't debatable. It's just historical fact."
John Haskins:
"Thanks, Gary. If you had a clue about the basic principles of law you'd know that every term in a statute or constitution has a meaning determined by the intent at the point of ratificiation by those who ratified it. "Marriage" is a pre-defined legal concept with thousands of years of affirmation of its precise meaning. That legal term in the MA and CA constitutions and statutes has a fixed meaning that no judge or executive can fudge. "Marriage" as a legal term in English, Canadian and American common law and in American state and federal constitutions means one man-one woman. This is settled. If "marriage" is a civil right between an unrelated adult man and woman that does not constitutionally or statutorilly include a totally contrary or counterfeit concept that judges or anyone else can cleverly merge into the actual right of marriage as plainly defined in actual law ratified by the people or their elected representatives in the exclusively empowered law-making body.
A man and a dog do not qualify as a legal "marriage" under statutes and constitutions that may countenance marriage as a fundamental right that may be exercised between an adult man and an unrelated adult woman. A flower and a bicycle and a rock do not qualify for a legal "marriage." A father and his daughter don't qualify constitutionally or statutorilly as a marriage. Two persons of the same sex do not qualify. That does not fit the LEGAL definition of "marriage."
Many courts have affirmed this. Mixed-race male-female couples DO qualify, for obvious reasons that do not apply to two persons of the same gender. What a number you have done on your own brain in order to stay abreast of the waves of perversion and tyranny. This selling of the soul culminates in taking the Mark of the Beast, selling one's soul for short-lived earthly security and riches. That's quite a deal you've got yourself, Gary!"
"Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) The U.S. Supreme Court first referred to the right to marry as "one of the basic civil rights." Perez v. Sharp (1948) In this case, the California Supreme Court was the first in the 20th century to declare that its state law prohibiting marriage between interracial couples was unconstitutional. The Court said: "Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men."Loving v. Virginia (1967) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting marriage between interracial couples were unconstitutional. The Court said: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
John Haskins:
"Your entire argument is not at all funny, but it is superficial and bogus. Your bending over backwards to oblige the frightful powers of this creeping dictatorship that cloaks itself in the thinnest veneer of legality. You are a dangerous man.
Go back to storing up earthly treasures, Gary. But hurry up and get what you can before the world ends and we are all judged for our dishonesty, greed and ruthless moral cowardice."
Now, that was a verbal filleting that will go down in the record books.
Anyone wish to refute Mr. Haskin's facts? I look forward to all of your comments and I will respond to them quickly as my team and I are back in MA after taking part in a blogging seminar in Colorado last week.
Good to be back!!!

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from