Law Suits from both sides on California Marriage Amendment-On same day as earthquake in California ADF files lawsuit against changed wording of California Marriage Amendment summary by Democrat Attorney General Jerry Brown:

"Original state wording: Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.) (Full Text)

Jerry Brown revision: Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments."

It's not about sex!! The Great Worldwide Divide and Again it's not about sex but rather who is teaching for doctrines the commandments of men?. A lawsuit for 70 million dollars against bible publishing company...links to audio and video footage of great importance and issues concerning religious freedom and protests of gay bishop and a must see interview for those concerned about what one of the leaders of the gay movement thinks of those who believe the scriptures teach homosexuality is a sin (quite a revealing interview with this bishop). We need to pray for him. UK officer was fined 1200 pounds over his views of homosexuality and San Jose college professor fired for explaining what is in the college text book namely that homosexuality being hereditary is in debate and even the EEOC issues new guidelines on Religious Discrimination because of all the cases going to court recently. Good news also, "divisions have been widening as strictly Bible-interpreting Anglican churches in the developing world have become the largest and fastest-growing churches in the communion."!!! And concerning the gay bishop above: "The top Anglican bishop in Sudan is calling for V. Gene Robinson, the openly homosexual bishop in New Hampshire, to "resign for the sake of the church," according to an Anglican expert. Homosexual ordination "is not what is found in the Bible" and is "not the norm of the Anglican world." and in Jerusalem: "The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) -- representing more than half of the world's practicing Anglicans -- wrapped up a weeklong meeting in Jerusalem, where more than 1,100 lay and clergy, including nearly 300 bishops, declared their allegiance to traditional biblical and church teachings and vowed to combat liberal trends, including the acceptance of homosexual leadership....Pledging to work against forces of "militant secularism and pluralism" within their Christian denomination, conservative Anglican leaders formed a new umbrella organization here at the weekend." bearing in mind that the Anglican church "is the second-largest group of churches in the world, behind Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians." and this meeting above consisted of "traditionalists from Africa, where the majority of the world's Anglicans (Episcopalians) live, they are being joined by some high-profile colleagues based in the West. They include the outspoken Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, who is to date the most senior clergyman in the Church of England -- the "mother church" of the worldwide Anglican Communion"-There is more to tell. Just check out the links....

If you have a chance to watch the 8 minute video interview of the gay bishop and his reasoning for gay marriages then "review what Christ said in Mark 7:7-9: "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.""and then "read thru the scriptures and see which of the two has violated the teachings of Jesus above. Who is laying aside the commandment of God and in its place teaching for doctrine the commandments of men? Again notice this is not about sex but whether or not one party or the other is properly representing what the scriptures teach on this subject." Is it the conservative Anglican community or those on the side of the gay bishop???? Notice again it's not about sex but about Christ and what the scriptures that testify of Him say about Christ and who's teaching on the subject of sex is consistent with the scriptures and thus with Christ.

Media's no emphasis of abortion as an issue hurting McCain and helping Obama/Obama on Fatherhood/The Physiology of Motherhood/Bush vs Clinton-"A new poll finds half of voters don't know that presidential candidate John McCain is pro-life on abortion or that Barack Obama is pro-abortion. The survey shows that, when pro-life voters know that information, they support McCain by a three-to-one margin....This information gap is important and a subsequent question shows whichever side of the abortion debate can frame the candidates first will likely help one of them win the election. Among pro-life voters who know where the two candidates stand, McCain trounces Obama by a whopping 70-24 percentage point margin. Surprisingly, Obama has a one percent lead (43-42 percent) among pro-life voters who are uninformed about their abortion positions." Check out the The Physiology of Motherhood, Obama and Fatherhood and if Fatherhood starts at conception when does Grandfatherhood start. Excellent video critizicing past comments by Obama on father's day concerning abortion. Also, Bush rocks congress over health professional rights to not have to be involved with abortion in anyway and more...

Take care all....

McDonalds's Boycott

http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/

"This boycott is not about hiring homosexuals, or homosexuals eating at McDonald's, or how homosexual employees are treated. It is about McDonald's, as a corporation, choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage."

Many of you probabily already know about this but just in case. I have already stopped eating there since I heard of this in the first place. I think if these companies are going to be active in supporting whatever they choose to support in the name of diversity then they need to be equally diverse in including the religious, also. Hey it's their business and they can do what they want with it but if it's hypocritical then it is.

Update on the NM photography case:

ADF files suit disputing N.M. commission's ruling against Christian photographer -A copy of the appeal filed with the 2nd Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, in Elane Photography v. Willock is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ElanePhotoAppeal.pdf.

McCain vs Obama on Bushs' Faith Based Initiative

Obamas' Divisive Faith Based Initiative? Click on African Wisdom vs NEA and UN/Obama supports a divisive faith based initiative. Scroll down to bottom video for a criticism.

Now you may have heard about whether or not Obama is for tax funded religious organizations religious liberties and conscious' or not. It may be confusing due to a recent AP article. Hopefully this may clear it up.

I will be emailing you 2 email updates I get everyday if you wish to read them in there entirety. I couldn't find a way to put them into this email so I will email the first one label One and the Second one labeled Two.

The first one says, "It's an axiom in politics that what a politician says in public is meant to please, but what he says in private is meant to pledge. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is rhapsodizing in public on the nation's hunger for a leader who shares their homegrown priorities--a love of country, faith in God, and loyalty to family. To prove his sincerity on the issues, Obama says that if elected he'll overhaul President Bush's faith-based initiative and expand it. In a speech today in Zanesville, Ohio, he said that church and religious organizations should play a bigger role in meeting our country's social needs. He would even support the right of federally-funded programs "to hire and fire based on faith." Notice assumed skepticism from this source as you read further. Apparently the skepticism turned out to be a ligitimate skepticism for the AP made a bad report on what Obama actually said.

The Second email labeled Two says, "It appears that in yesterday's Update we gave Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) faith-based policy too much credit. Working from an Associated Press story released before the candidate made his Zanesville speech, FRC included the quote that Obama intended to "support the ability [of religious groups] to hire and fire based on faith." We regret the error. But we also regret what Sen. Obama actually said, which is that his administration would not protect the religious rights of faith-based groups to make employment decisions based on their moral convictions when they are using tax dollars. In his talk, Obama put his "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" in stark contrast to President Bush's current program. "First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them--or against the people you hire--based on your religion," he said. Despite the clear and present danger this would pose to church-based outreach programs, Rev. Jim Wallis, President of the liberal Sojourners, wasted no time announcing his support for the plan, even implying that "Obama's proposals also contain necessary protections for religious liberty..." The reality is that Obama's interpretation would be a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds. In contrast, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) released a statement today supporting the rights of religious organizations that apply for government funding to "hire people who share their faith."

Arizona Marriage Amendment

Arizonans to vote on the Marriage Amendment in November-"The long-anticipated vote came just before adjournment and followed hours of angry, raucous debate in which the legislative rule book was used as a weapon to both stall the vote (Democrats) and cut short debate (Republicans). Senators on both sides of the aisle and of the issue lamented a meltdown in the higher chamber, as most of the day's work was scrapped so that the marriage amendment could be voted upon while key senators were present."

McCain vs Obama on state Marriage Amendments

In the first email labeled One that I am sending to you Obama is reported of saying at "the LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco, he scorned man-woman marriage, saying , "...I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution [to protect marriage], and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of any other states." While telling the world he will up hold the faith-based initiative as the cornerstone of his administration, Obama says that a cornerstone of society - heterosexual marriage -- is "divisive and discriminatory." Doesn't this mean that faith-based organizations that support marriage will be disqualified from federal funding under an Obama presidency? It would be next to impossible for ministries that promote traditional marriage to participate in a Healthy Marriage project funded through an Obama faith-based initiative."

For McCain see, McCain vs Obama on Marriage Amendment in California which I posted in the last email.

Good News on McCain

McCain seems to be meeting with evangelical conservatives to make a point with us. I find it interesting that there are ample reports in the news on Obamas' reaching out to the religious whereas McCains' reach has very little air. So, just in case you didn't know. McCain has made supporting statements on California Marriage Act which was in your last email. He has supported Bushs' Faith Based Initiatives to ALL Faiths not just to compromising faiths. He has met privately with Billy and Franklin Graham and with Frank Pavone a strong Catholic Pro-Life conservative scroll down to the second article under the subheading of Pro-Life. And recently he appeared before 90 conservatives in Denver evangelical leaders which include Matthew Staver who formely supported Huckabee of the Liberty Counsel (which offensively sues and defensively protects pro-life cases and religious liberty cases like this recent one against Hallmark)..."According to Staver, those in attendance included Phyllis Schlafly, head of the Eagle Forum; pastor and "Left Behind" co-author Tim LaHaye and his wife, Beverly, founder of Concerned Women for America; David Barton, founder of WallBuilders; Rick Scarborough of Vision America; and Don Hodel, a former interior secretary and former president of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family. "Our shared core values compel us to unite and choose the presidential candidate that best advances those values," said Staver...."That obvious choice is Sen. John McCain. I think people left the meeting in unity the likes of which have not been evident through the primaries."...Staver said enthusiasm is building for McCain, in part because of the Republican senator's recent meetings with movement leaders like Phil Burress, who also attended the Denver summit. Burress helped pass an anti-gay marriage measure in Ohio that was credited with helping President Bush win the state in 2004. Asked whether it was opposition to Obama or enthusiasm for McCain that motivated the group, Staver said: "Obama is a considerable threat to our values. At the same time, Sen. McCain recently has been reaching out to evangelicals and conservative voters that we represent."

I am waiting to see who he chooses as VP before I am persuaded. But he is doing a good job reaching out at this moment for my values vote without contradictions.

Obama vs Dobson

Commentary: In Defense of Dr. Dobson-by Patrick Buchanan. A must read article for those interested. "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles....whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's or with Al Sharpton's?...translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than have religion divide us."-Thus saith Obama. But when confronted with skepticism from Dobson namely that Obama "is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.." and "Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the life of tiny babies?". Obamas' "open" and "vigorous debate" is that Dobson is "making stuff up". Well maybe he is and maybe he isn't but when it comes to what matters at the end of the day on biblical issues like the lives of the unborn, marriage and religous liberties Dobson understanding of the Bible wins hands down!!!! Obama should practice his claimed truth and have an "open and vigorous debate". I think we need an "open and vigorous debate rather than having" Obamas view of the Bible "divide" up the truth of the scriptures into whatever he wants it to say all in the name of non divisiveness. How undivisive is that???!!!! Talk about an unbiblical point of view of what a christian is see: Obama Reaches Out to Young Evangelicals?. Don't forget about his pastor for 20 years!!! I mean if Obama wants to reach out to evangelicals he must expect criticism from evangelicals!!!! For more evidence of Obamas' reach out to evangelicals check out: How valuable is your Values Vote? Obamas' first ad: To Values Voters?.

"Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?"-John Quincy Adams July 4th 1937

http://www.valuesvoternews.com/

2nd Amendment Rights

Thanks to Bush appointed Judges: 5 Judges rule in favour of 2nd Amendment to 4 dissenting Judges.-"Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion is a textbook example of constitutional originalism....D.C. had either the first or second highest murder rate among the nation's 50 largest cities. A National Academy of Sciences report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and a survey of 80 different gun-control laws, shows no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns...Justice Scalia's opinion is exemplary for the way it was reasoned. It will be studied by law professors and students for years to come. It is the clearest, most careful interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution ever to be adopted by a majority of the Supreme Court . . .Justice Scalia's opinion is the finest example of what is now called "original public meaning" jurisprudence ever adopted by the Supreme Court." "Flip flop or not? Does Obama support the DC Handgun Law as constitutional or does he not?"-See the video and you be the judge. I honestly can't tell for sure. One instance he says he supports the ban as constitutional and the next he doesn't but his explanation is a little confusing so who knows. To me either its a 2nd amendment right or not. But I honestly don't know the issues well enough so for those of you who do you be the judge if it interests you!!! By contrast, however, it is pretty clear where McCain stands. This to me is not a big issue except when it comes to how judges will understand the constitution and it sounds like Scalia and the majority court is in my boat of understanding what the constitution meant in the context of the times in which it was created and then to apply those intentions to life of today but never to change the meaning of those intentions because of the times of today. If one wishes to change the constitution for todays society one should AMEND IT not reinterpret nor redefine it!!! If we redefine or reinterpret it to meet todays "demands" then really how constitutional is the constitution from one day to the next and back!!!

Morning Shows Give a Combined 3.5 Minutes to Historic Gun Ruling-"Despite the "historic" nature of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right, all three morning shows on Friday virtually ignored the decision, devoting a combined total of three minutes and 33 seconds to the story. And between CBS's Early Show, NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America, that's out of eight hours of programming"

The 2005 testimony of the Roe of Roe vs Wade in the 1973 Supreme Court decision against the unborn.

Jesus, Texas, Kansas, Colorado and Roe vs Obamas' radical extremism against the unborn: "the most radical president ever when it comes to abortion."-See how the lawyers treated the "victim" in this case according to the "victim" herself. Contrast her Values with those of Obama. Also, note the forgiveness she received in Christ as she gives in her official testimony in 2005 to the US Senate and calls on Senators to repent she says, "We have to turn from our wicked ways. Senators, I urge you to examine your own conscience before Almighty God. God is willing and able to forgive you. He sent His own son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for my sins as Roe of Roe v. Wade, and for our sins in failing to act to end abortion and to truly help women in crisis pregnancies. I finally asked the Lord Jesus to forgive me in 1995"-And does this apply to us voters. Are we not the ones who have accepted this practice by electing the Senators and presidents that have been endorsed by the strongest abortion rights activists. Is not the media and hollywood and documentarist also just as much at fault for not making the American public aware of such issues and making it less of an issue then the Mary Magdalena of Jesus? I hear Obama says that he agrees that abortion is wrong but not to be imposed on others and then he says he doesn't want his daughters to be punished with a baby if they make a mistake and then he says fatherhood starts at conception and then he says he wants to only reduce aborted sons from conception and not eliminate it. My head is dizzy with contradictions. Bottom line he is for the destruction of newly formed human beings in the womb of a mother and it is obvious by who endorses him. I would just like to ask Obama to apply his belief that he is not to impose his beliefs concerning abortions on the choice of a woman (namely that it is murder) and thus we should not take the Pro-Life position in politics but let the women decide for themselves thus the Pro-Choice position in politics. Take that same view and apply it to those of the civil rights movement or abolitionist of slavery and the slave trade or any other autrocity that has been overcome in times past by men and women standing on principle like the holocaust inspite of others beliefs. Let Obama argue with William Wilberforce in Parliament. William says: "we need to end the slave trade it is an abomination" and Obama responds: "yes it is an abomination but we can't impose our beliefs on others". The only reason why one would make such an argument is because they knowingly or unknowingly consider the slave or unborn child as less than human. Obamas' position is an imposing of a belief on a human life to a point beyond slavery (death) in the name of not imposing my views on others on this politic. Thus Obama is self refuting when it comes to his position on abortion in politics and if this is how he treats this most grave and serious issue of human life then I don't care how good his "plan for america is" it is death to the unborn just as much as any slave abolitionist would not cast a vote for such treatment of humans as less then human. And how can God bless us if we are destroying lives in the name of choice. Now maybe I am misrepresenting Obamas' position and reasoning here. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong if there are any Obama fans out there.

Here is Sandra Cano 2 video minute testimony (if the link doesn't pull up click www.operationoutcry.org and you can find it near the bottom) before the senate in 2005. Sandra is the Doe in Doe vs Bolton which was a companion case with Roe vs Wade.

Supremes to reconsider landmark abortion case Plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton case says ACLU attorney pushed her to have abortion-"The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to reconsider next week its landmark 1973 Doe vs. Bolton abortion decision, in response to a lawsuit brought by the case's original plaintiff, who claims she was pressured by ACLU attorneys to opt for abortion and that the case was based on fraud. Like Norma McCorvey, the original "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade, Sandra Cano was "Mary Doe" of 1973's other historic abortion decision. Together, "Roe" and "Doe" eliminated all state laws prohibiting abortion and legalized abortion. Cano's case in particular – because of the "health exception" for the mother it created – opened the door to abortion on demand, for virtually any reason, at any stage of pregnancy up to the moment of birth....Cano, who at the time of the case was a pregnant, 22-year-old wife of an abusive husband and all three of her children in foster care, was just looking for a way to get her children back and leave her husband, she says. At no time was she interested in abortion, she adds, but insists she was pressured toward abortion by an aggressive ACLU attorney...U.S. abortion laws was based on fraud and lies coordinated by Margie Pitts Hames, Cano's ACLU attorney...Saying her mother and Hames tried to force her to have an abortion, Cano says she fled to Oklahoma and returned only when she was sure she was assured that she wouldn't have to have the abortion. She was told not to speak in court, Cano adds."-Many more good links below this story for further understanding from the Pro-Life point of view.

Repent America

This sites may be offensive and is pretty strongly worded at times as you dig deeper. So I just forewarn you all now. It is a decent resource and a good biblical argument for why we should repent there are 2 options to enter the site. One for the christian and one for the non-christian.

www.repentamerica.com- "Repent v. To turn away from sin. to sorrow or be pained for violating God's holy law, a dishonour to His character and government, and the foulist ingratitude to a Being of infinite benevolence."

And while we are at it another strongly worded article:

THE JESUS MANIFESTO: A CALL TO REVOLUTION-"Forty years ago, a counterculture revolution swept through America, resulting in a sudden, steep moral decline. Since that time (from the early '60s until today), the divorce rate has doubled, the teen suicide rate has tripled, reported violent crime has quadrupled, the prison population has quintupled, the percentage of babies born out of wedlock has risen six-fold, and couples living together out of wedlock has risen sevenfold. And the end is not in sight. The last generation's counterculture of rebellion has become this generation's establishment of revulsion, and what was unthinkable forty years ago – daytime talk shows celebrating adultery and incest; homosexual love scenes on major network TV; eleven year-old multiple murderers; massacres in our schools and houses of worship – is a matter of course today. We need a revolution! But this revolution will be different than other revolutions – including the revolution that birthed our nation more than 200 years ago. This revolution will not be fought with earthly weapons of destruction – not with guns and knives and bullets and bombs. It will not be fought with hatred, anger, intimidation, or brute force. No. It will be fought with the message of the gospel, with the love of God, with the power of the Spirit, with radical holiness, with sacrifice, compassion, and courage. It will be a Jesus revolution, an intense clash between two spiritual kingdoms, a heavenly attack on the enemy's strongholds, a no compromise stand for morality and truth. And it will impact society in a lasting way. It must!"

And event. If anything do check out the video advertisement on the below web site advertising this event:

The Call-"since 1973 we have had the choice" "we have chosen" "to kill a baby every 22 seconds" "if 600,000 men died on the battlefield in the civil war because of slavery" "what is coming to America if God provides a day fo reckoning for 50 million babie" "when there is no hope" "when there is no remedy" "God still has a holy prescription" "8 years ago 400,000 young people gathered at the mall" "8 years later...."-Washington DC at the mall 08/16/2008

On a lighter side

McCain vs Obama on Marriage Amendment in California

"Congress never reflects the values of the nation; rather, it only reflects the values of those who voted in the last election."-David Barton

---www.ValuesVoterNews.com

Same Sex Marriage first time in California today

Biblical marriage vs. CA courts: Ruling today-"The California Supreme Court has rejected appeals of its ruling that the state must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning at 5:01 p.m. (local time) today. But the Supreme Court's decision merely hands the case back down to the California Court of Appeal, which is charged with deciding how and when to implement the high court's ruling. It is that power that Matt Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, is appealing to now...."The California Supreme Court only addressed two of the many statutes regarding marriage. You can't simply address two statutes when there's [sic] literally hundreds of others, all of which reference 'men' and 'women,' 'male' and 'female,' 'husband' and 'wife,' all of which have to be addressed," Staver explains. The Liberty Counsel chairman says failure to take matters such as that under consideration is one of the primary reasons the U.S. and state constitutions do not let judges write laws. "All of the confusion illustrates one point: judges should not be in the business of being politically active lawmakers," Staver points out. The appeals court, according to the attorney, should stay the decision to give the legislature time to examine the hundreds of other state statutes that could come into conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling. "It's that court which is tasked with implementing the particular ruling. It's at that level we're asking, now, this court to do its job, to follow the rule of law and to stay this decision," Staver says. Liberty Counsel's press release says this case "is far from over. We will not give up. The people will have the final say on marriage."

Marriage Amendment/African-Americans were determining factor for Bush in 2004? Is this why liberal media silent about this issue?: For how ABC, NBC and CBS has treated this story:A good hour long discussion concerning Same Sex Marriage issues in California from a conservative perspective.-You'll get a perspective that ABC, NBC and CBS are not willing to report on.

What do 52 members of US Congress and Brazilian President Luiz Lula have in common?-"Norway has become the sixth country in the world to give homosexuals the legal right to "marry,""

Ireland High Court Rules Against Gay 'Marriage' Citing Harm to Children Refuses Recognition of Lesbian "Marriage" Staged in Canada-"The United States-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy commented on the Irish court decision, saying: 'Of particular interest may be the court's discussion about the evidence purporting to show no difference between children raised by same-sex couples and those raised by married couples. The judge accepted testimony about the methodological shortcomings of available evidence and said: "It also seems to me having regard to the criticism of the methodology used in the majority of the studies conducted to date that until such time as there are more longitudinal studies involving much larger samples that it will be difficult to reach firm conclusions on this topic."' 'The court concluded that the Irish Constitution's explicit reference to a constitutional right of opposite-sex couples to marry justified the legal distinction between same- and opposite-sex couples in the marriage law. The court further noted, however, that the marriage law was further justified by concerns with the 'welfare of children' since in the absence of good research, 'the State is entitled to adopt a cautious approach to changing the capacity to marry.'"-138 page ruling here.

Order a FREE Marriage Protection Kit

Obama using smear tactics?

Is Obama using smear tactics on "the most listened to radio talk show in America"? -Obama has a new web site to fight emails that have been sent out to many that are falsely accusing him of certain things. You can click on above site to find this web site. And on many issues I can certainly see why he has dedicated a web site for such purpose. And I think it is a good site overall to quiet some false rumors. What I take issue with is in the way Obama is doing this he is, himself smearing conservatives and Republicans for obvious political advantages? Check it out for yourself!!

War time encouragement

Letters Show Strength of Soldiers' Faith-"Does war tend to strengthen or weaken the faith of those fighting? A man who has collected more than 80,000 soldier letters has an answer.For Arthur Craig, a letter from his son, 27-year-old Staff Sergeant Brian Craig, is precious beyond words."

Christianity under political attack in the UK and Internationally

Gov't Needs Christians to Help Counter Extremism, Bishop Says-"The Bishop of Rochester has attacked the “mess” of multiculturalism and urged the government to utilize the United Kingdom’s millions of Christians in building community cohesion. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali said that the “policies of successive governments and local authorities” and the promotion of multiculturalism “at the expense of national and community integrity” had led to social segregation, “parallel lives”....At a time when many Christians are concerned that the Government favors Muslims, the report similarly concluded that the Government was focusing on the “minority religions.”...Nazir-Ali said that such a policy would fail to address the problem of extremism. “Is that policy sensible or even realistic?” he wrote in the newspaper....“Such a challenge cannot be met by turning our backs on the very resources, spiritual, moral and intellectual, that both make it possible to fight extremism and are the reason for our determination to maintain all that is valuable in British polity, culture and public life,” he said. He urged the government to counter extremism by supporting faith groups in their civic work. “The Government should be putting its resources wherever civil society is being strengthened, where people are working for social inclusion, where the needs of the most vulnerable are being met,” he said....The bishop pointed to the thousands of believers who want to serve their communities because of their Christian faith. “Christian convictions are central to any explanation of why thousands of people volunteer for tasks, with no reward, knowing that they are doing the right thing,” he stated."

UK: House of Lords recognizes dangers of hate laws to free speech and religious liberty -"The Government backed down last night and allowed a free speech protection to be written into its proposed 'homophobic hatred' law. The decision came after the Government was defeated for a second time in the House of Lords. Peers voted 178 to 164 in favour of the protection yesterday evening.... This marks the end of a lengthy battle to make clear that the new criminal offence should not interfere with free speech or religious liberty."

First Amendment Victories

First Amendment Victory: Mass. School Agrees to Settle Free Speech Lawsuit and Amend Policies to Protect Conservative Student Expression-"School officials at a Massachusetts high school have agreed to settle a lawsuit over the school's alleged censorship of conservative political posters. The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, charged that officials at Hudson High School violated the First Amendment rights of students Christopher Bowler and James Milello when they censored their Conservative Club posters and discriminated against them on the basis of the club's conservative political viewpoint."

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot-Scroll down to Religious Freedom and see how the ACLU fails to silence religious expression in Wilson County.

Documentaries

Bloodline: Another Unholy Hollywood Hoax? Don't be fooled by all these documentaries on PBS, ABC, NBC and CBS about Mary Magdalene and the discrediting of the gospels without first getting the otherside of the story. Another documentary has just come out. Check out this rebuttal to the documentary: BLOODLINE: Serious Documentary or Hollywood Hoax? and a in depth rebuttal to previous shows: The So-Called Jesus Family Tomb 'Rediscovered' in Jerusalem: "Monday morning, February 26, 2007, I heard this opening statement by Matt Lauer on the NBC Today show: "Is this the tomb of Jesus? A shocking new claim that an ancient burial place may have housed the bones of Christ and a son. This morning a Today exclusive that could rock Christianity to its core." When I saw the interview with James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici I said to myself, "This isn’t new. It is a rehashing of the 1996 'Easter special' by the BBC!"

I believe that if both sides of the stories were given it would be clear that there would be no reason why one would reject the gospels in the New Testament over these other gospels that these documentaries seem to be hyping so much about.

First point and most important that I would like to make concerning these documentaries is that the question of "why were these gospels not included in the New Testament?" and the assumed response from these documentaries is because of something to do with the church fathers being against Mary Magdalene and the authority of women. This to me is just plain bias. Here's why. 1. The gospels themselves give great honour to women and more so to Mary Magdalene then probabily any other woman besides the other Mary (mother of Jesus)!!! Read the gospels with a view to see how Mary Magdalene herself is viewed and you will see this is not the case (remember that Mary Magdalene was first to believe in Jesus rose from the dead and Jesus rebuked the disciples for not believing when she reported it to them). But the most devastating in my mind critique of this bias is: 2. If you watch/listen to the documentaries themselves and their unscriptural conclusions then you will find the real answer as to why these other gospels were rejected!!!! It is obvious for they conclude conclusion that flat out reject the conclusions of the gospels given in the scriptures. Why would a church father include a gospel that leads to conclusions that these documentaries lead to that; Christ did not die on the cross for our sins nor raise from the dead and ascend into heaven but rather is in some tomb some where next to Mary Magdalene?????? The obvious reason as to why they were not included in the gospels is because they contradict the gospels. I mean you are talking about having huge contradictions if they were to be accepted. Not little arguable ones but theological salvation issue contradictions. I can't believe these documentaries miss this glaring obvious answer as to why they are not included in the New Testament. The only way I can understand it is that whatever school they got there education from must have been very biasedor they are themselves. This is theological absurdity to its highest degreee!!!! And these are "theologians" and people who I know are smart with PH D's that they are quoting on these documentaries. Give me a break!!! They have the PH D they should know better!!! This to me is one of the most devastating criticisms of these documentaries besides having no other side to balance out this nonsense with. They can only fool the ignorant and I suppose that is what they are banking on with their PH D's and the authority of Prime Time TV. And then to top it off they come out with this stuff during christian holidays. Puke!!!

I hope by God's grace that they see the light but until then may the one sided darkness of these documentaries lay exposed by the otherside and if Christ did die on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead and is ascended into heaven, which I believe He is, then what a darkness they indeed are in spreading the lie of all lies...."he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."-1 John 5:10 and not only are they spreading one sided lies about God Himself and His only begotten Son but they do with such appearance of "journalistic, PH D, documentary filmed objectivity"!!!

May God save them as He saved me by the very Son they undermine and I have in the past remembering that just as much as we understand that we are to love our neighbour as ourselves (which is the 2nd of the 2 great commands of God to men according to Jesus) how much more are we to love God the giver of all our lives and heaven and earth with all our heart soul and mind honouring the first and great commandment according to Jesus. We all fall miserably short and need the blood of Jesus to enter into His place of rest and may we be found in Him on that day. The greater the command the greater the sin but in Christ the greater the GRACE and the more precious HIS BLOOD and the more powerful HIS RESURRECTION and ASCENSION and WORK in our lives today.

Take care all

--Valuesvoternews.com

But its not over till the voters say its over. See part 2 below...

Part 1:
Update on Marriage Case in California:

The Decision:

Here is 150 or so page opinion. I also found 3 hour video footage of the whole argument back in March from both sides online.

If you don't have time/expertise like I don't to read all pages here is decision in short. If I messed this up please forgive me. I just scrolled down till I found conclusions and then scrolled down to read a Dissenters opinion and bolded what I found most interesting. But feel free to view it yourself in its entirety and unbolded...

"A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

The 4 Judges that have redefined marriage in the state of California at the expense of 4.6 million modern day voters and a Californian historical definition of marriage that this court also acknowledged that: "f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.": GEORGE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,WERDEGAR, J.,MORENO, J.

And the 3 that voted nay,
BAXTER, J.,CHIN, J.,CORRIGAN, J.

one vote from one judge makes the difference for millions of californians!!! Below is dissenters opinion by corrigan, j.

"...I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.......In Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, we struck down a law prohibiting interracial marriages. The majority places great reliance on the Perez court's statement that "the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." (Id. at p. 715.) However, Perez and the many other cases establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 54-63.) The majority recognizes this, as it must. (Id. at p. 66.) Because those cases involved the traditional definition of marriage, they do not support the majority's analysis. The question here is whether the meaning of the term as it was used in those cases must be changed. What is unique about this case is that plaintiffs seek both to join the institution of marriage and at the same time to alter its definition. The majority maintains that plaintiffs are not attempting to change the existing institution of marriage. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 53.) This claim is irreconcilable with the majority's declaration that "[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman." (Id. at p. 23, fn. omitted.) The people are entitled to preserve this traditional understanding in the terminology of the law, recognizing that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are different. What they are not entitled to do is treat them differently under the law. The distinction between substance and nomenclature makes this case different from other civil rights cases. The definition of the rights to education, to vote, to pursue an office or occupation, and the other celebrated civil rights vindicated by the courts, were not altered by extending them to all races and both genders. The institution of marriage was not fundamentally changed by removing the racial restrictions that formerly encumbered it. Plaintiffs, however, seek to change the definition of the marital relationship, as it has consistently been understood, into something quite new. They could certainly accomplish such a redefinition through the initiative process. As a voter, I might agree. But that change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate."-CORRIGAN, J.

But the voters in California already suspecting this outcome are not giving up see Part 2: (there is an amazing accomplishment they have recently accomplished and in the process of attempting to accomplish and also see more states that have done the same, it is not that easy to amend a state constitution and that is what is being attempted in California and already done in 26 other states and for those who agree that the definition of marriage is an important one see below from email sent out earlier today). You will see how many millions of voters it takes to override one judges vote when we could have just voted for one more judge that is not going to invent new definitions of words into law in the first place. If we the people want change then not only are presidents and congress important elections but judges are just as much. So pay attention to what kind of judges a candidate/congress will be likely to nominate/approve. Be sure they are consistent with your definition of words!!!
Part 2:

Part of the email sent out earlier today but put it here for context sake to continue from above:
"But check this out!!! Even if the California Supreme Courts deems the voters Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional check out what the voters have been up to for the past 5 months.

California Marriage Amendment Headed to Ballot-""The fact that we will turn in 1.1 million signatures is unprecedented, coming from the grassroots and the churches of this state...The amendment to the state constitution would protect marriage from the courts and the Legislature...The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people."

www.protectmarriage.com-"Official web site of the California Marriage Protection Act"

America Votes to Protect Marriage-Check out the demographic graph of states that have already amended their constitutions. "In 2004, thirteen states passed constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure received more votes than either presidential candidates, George W. Bush or John Kerry, in all but one state. Four other states had previously amended their constitutions, and two more passed marriage amendments in 2005. In August 2006, Alabama became the twentieth state to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment. Seven additional states passed constitutional amendments on November 7, 2006 (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin). Arizona became the first state in which a marriage amendment did not pass—narrowly losing 49 percent to 51 percent. In an election year marked by victory for Democrats, the passage of seven of eight marriage amendments—27 overall—demonstrates that support for marriage transcends party affiliation." However, Arizona House just....

Ariz. House OKs amendment to ban same-sex marriage-"The current Arizona legislative proposal backed by social conservatives would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The 2006 version had that wording plus a provision that was widely interpreted as targeting civil unions and domestic partnerships."-05/12/2008

I am quite surprised the media hasn't itself focused as much attention on this subject as has Americans despite lack of media coverage!!!! It seems this would make for high ratings on national TV programs but oh yeah I forgot that this doesn't support liberal/progressive politics and we sure don't want conservative politics spreading to other states nor have any limelight in the public media so we will focus only on the negatives of our opponents that aren't so popular with Americans and hide our unpopular negatives. What was I thinking???

Other quick news blip which has been deemphasized in the media at the expense of Bushs' approval ratings:

Congress approval rating at an all time low-this came in one of my email updates from The Heritage Foundation. Approval rating lower then Bush job rating which you can find here. This is an interesting polling site so I will give its home page here. http://www.pollingreport.com/.

Lastly:

I was listening to this 30 minute program on TBN this morning as I was getting the kids ready for school and found it interesting enough to pas on quickly in this email at http://www.rodparsley.com/WatchNow.aspx.

Yanking Back the Balance/Filling in the Gaps/Emphasizing the Missing Headlines

"The Republican-led House's vote was mostly along party lines, with Democrats Jack Brown of St. Johns and Pete Rios of Hayden voting for the resolution. Tucson Republicans Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns voted against it."-Arizona Central commenting on how each party voted in the House in Arizona on this popular with American

"California's Defense of Marriage Act, the result of the Proposition 22 ballot initiative, states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Sixty-one percent of California voters passed the measure in March 2000."

The constitutionality of what the voters passed in 2000 will be decided today at 10:00am.

And for the actual 3 hour argument from both sides please check out my email on 03/04/2008.

But check this out!!! Even if the California Supreme Courts deems the voters Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional check out what the voters have been up to for the past 5 months.

California Marriage Amendment Headed to Ballot-""The fact that we will turn in 1.1 million signatures is unprecedented, coming from the grassroots and the churches of this state...The amendment to the state constitution would protect marriage from the courts and the Legislature...The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people."

http://www.protectmarriage.com/-"Official web site of the California Marriage Protection Act"

America Votes to Protect Marriage-Check out the demographic graph of states that have already amended their constitutions. "In 2004, thirteen states passed constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure received more votes than either presidential candidates, George W. Bush or John Kerry, in all but one state. Four other states had previously amended their constitutions, and two more passed marriage amendments in 2005. In August 2006, Alabama became the twentieth state to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment. Seven additional states passed constitutional amendments on November 7, 2006 (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin). Arizona became the first state in which a marriage amendment did not pass—narrowly losing 49 percent to 51 percent. In an election year marked by victory for Democrats, the passage of seven of eight marriage amendments—27 overall—demonstrates that support for marriage transcends party affiliation." However, Arizona House just....

Ariz. House OKs amendment to ban same-sex marriage-"The current Arizona legislative proposal backed by social conservatives would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The 2006 version had that wording plus a provision that was widely interpreted as targeting civil unions and domestic partnerships."-05/12/2008

I am quite surprised the media hasn't itself focused as much attention on this subject as has Americans despite lack of media coverage!!!! It seems this would make for high ratings on national TV programs but oh yeah I forgot that this doesn't support liberal/progressive politics and we sure don't want conservative politics spreading to other states nor have any limelight in the public media so we will focus only on the negatives of our opponents that aren't so popular with Americans and hide our unpopular negatives. What was I thinking???

Other quick news blip which has been deemphasized in the media at the expense of Bushs' approval ratings:

Congress approval rating at an all time low-this came in one of my email updates from The Heritage Foundation. Approval rating lower then Bush job rating which you can find here. This is an interesting polling site so I will give its home page here. http://www.pollingreport.com/.

Lastly:

I was listening to this 30 minute program on TBN this morning as I was getting the kids ready for school and found it interesting enough to pas on quickly in this email at http://www.rodparsley.com/WatchNow.aspx.

Yanking Back the Balance/Filling in the Gaps/Emphasizing the Missing Headlines

"The Republican-led House's vote was mostly along party lines, with Democrats Jack Brown of St. Johns and Pete Rios of Hayden voting for the resolution. Tucson Republicans Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns voted against it."-Arizona Central commenting on how each party voted in the House in Arizona on this popular with American voters amendment?