For some who read this, the phrase, "None of the Above" may bring back memories of the 1985 Richard Pryor movie, "Brewster's Millions" (okay, just me then?). Of course, I am actually talking about the upcoming election and my intent to vote 3rd party. As I don't expect a 3rd party candidate to actually prevail over either of the 2 major party candidates, "None of the Above" is appropriate.

What insanity is this? You might ask. Aren't you effectively wasting a vote by not voting for a candidate who has a real chance of winning? I also understand that, to some, this may seem like a protest vote only made to make a statement, and not in good conscience. I made the point before that it is impossible to "waste a vote" as long as your vote is cast based on your understanding of the issues and your candidate's ability to represent you on those issues, and I will not belabor that here.

The purpose of this article is to further explore the concept of voting 3rd party and my rationale for doing so. I will start by exploring the alternatives:

A Vote for Barack Obama

I would like to be clear that Barack Obama represents possibly the opposite of everything I look for in a candidate for President. He is a family man, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is doing what he feels is best for his country. His stance on the issues that are important to me (no matter which side he is on at present) do not represent mine at all. He is running his campaign on the premise that Big Government needs to step in to cure the ills of society, because the "unwashed masses" do not have the will or the know-how to do so for themselves. His views generally reflect a basic lack of faith in the American people. Despite his statements that, "We are who we have been looking for", he seems to be more interested in getting "we" to vote for his administration so they can step in and socialize everything. This is tantamount to limiting the liberties of Americans, not protecting it. Barack Obama's worldview flies in the face of the vision of our founding fathers which are described in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These men saw the damage that absolute government control could do, and sought to limit government instead, leaving the administration to focus on protecting the liberties of it's citizens, nothing more

A Vote for John McCain

While John McCain is a fine individual as well and has served his country admirably during his time in the military and as a Senator, he is not anywhere near conservative enough to be compared with the likes of Ronald Reagan, as much as those in denial and McCain himself would like us to think so. No matter how many times McCain squeezes out the phrase, "My friends" he in no way reminds me of Reagan, and in fact I resent the fact that he thinks anyone would be taken in by it. Reviewing his voting record makes him soft on some key issues as well. The most glaring to me is his historically weak stance on illegal immigration. He has consistently voted for softer borders, and in 2006 supported a bill basically granting amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. While he has more recently taken a harder line on this issue with tough talk about securing our borders, he still makes statements alluding to his belief that amnesty is fair and the best thing for America. This is significant because this reveals a little about his worldview, which apparently holds less respect for our country's sovereignty as I believe it should. His choice of Sarah Palin for V.P. certainly peaked my interest for a time, but what is exciting about McCain's campaign is Sarah Palin, not John McCain, who is running for the highest office in the United States.

In recent history, like before the primaries, John McCain was far from the favorite in conservative circles and I think many breathed a sigh of relief when his campaign lost it's viability and he seemed done this go around. Those reservations many held about McCain still hold true today. This man has not changed in the last 8 months, so while many may think I am foolish for voting 3rd party, the worst I can be accused of is holding to my principles.

You may have picked up a bitter tone in my description of McCain, and I think the reason for that is, while he may be more Conservative than Obama and arguably the lesser of 2 evils, he is less genuine than Obama. Shocked? Please allow me to explain. With Obama, you get what you ask for, everything is on the table. People who support Obama do so because they hold to the same beliefs that he does, that the government has a responsibility to rescue us from ourselves and act as a "nanny" for Americans. Conservatives will not vote for him because they know exactly where he is coming from and what he intends to do and disagree with him. The problem with McCain is, we really have no idea what to expect from his proposed administration because what he says today is not consistent with what he has done while in the Senate, nor is it consistent with what he was saying before the primaries. Add to that the utter failure of many self-described conservatives in the administration to demonstrate any real level of conservative principle and you can call me fed up.

With all of the talk of party loyalty and the fear of the Republican Party falling out of power, I would like to take some time to explore what a McCain administration would do to conservatism and the Republican Party vs. 4 years of an Obama administration.

Conservatives have endorsed McCain, not because of his record, or because they are confident in his ability to promote conservative views so much as because he has the right label and the only alternative is Obama. If he is elected, McCain, a "maverick" with a reputation for reaching across the aisle, will likely be a very effective President; not because he will have any real influence over what is likely to be a filibuster-proof, overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. On the contrary, he will agree with them more than disagree and tons of legislation designed to support a very liberal agenda will pass. When these policies fail, and they will, McCain and Republicans will catch the blame and 2012 could become very interesting for Hillary or even Obama again, who will be able to talk about how "look where 12 years of a Republican President has gotten you".

An Obama administration will set out to do exactly what we could expect. Ultra-liberal policies the likes we have not seen since the Carter administration. We will all get taxed to death as we sit and watch just how ineffective and disastrous the socialist utopian dream really is. Just like the Carter 4 years ushered in 8 years of Reagan conservatism, these events would likely do the same. Americans will get exactly what they asked for in Obama and I predict they will decide it isn't all it was cut out to be.

So I argue that, while 4 years of McCain would not only be a violation of conscience, it would also hurt the conservative cause more than help, while an Obama administration would force conservative citizens and representatives to wake up and demand proper representation rather than settling for the lesser of 2 evils.

Platform of the Constitution Party

In reviewing the platform set forth by the Constitution Party, I realize it reflects exactly what the name of the party implies: a purely constitutional form of government as established by our founding fathers.

Here are some key excerpts that make this party appealing to me, a more complete list can be found here:

Sanctity of Life

The Preamble of the Constitution states a purpose of the Constitution to be to:
"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
We declare the unalienable right of Life to be secured by our Constitution "to ourselves and our Posterity". Our posterity includes children born and future generations yet unborn. Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life.

Congress

The Congress of these United States has become an overpaid, overstaffed, self-serving institution. It confiscates taxpayer funds to finance exorbitant and unconstitutionally determined salaries, pensions, and perks. Most members of Congress have become more accountable to the Washington establishment than to the people in their home districts. Both houses of Congress are all too often unresponsive and irresponsible, arrogantly placing themselves above the very laws they enact, and beyond the control of the citizens they have sworn to represent and serve.

We seek to abolish Congressional pensions.

It is time for the American people to renew effective supervision of their public servants, to restore right standards and to take back the government. Congress must once again be accountable to the people and obedient to the Constitution, repealing all laws that delegate legislative powers to regulatory agencies, bureaucracies, private organizations, the Federal Reserve Board, international agencies, the President, and the judiciary.

Defense

We call for the maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. We urge the executive and legislative branches to continue to provide for the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation. We call for the deployment of a fully-operational strategic defense system as soon as possible.

We believe that all defense expenditures should be directly related to the protection of our nation, and that every item of expenditure must be carefully reviewed to eliminate foreign aid, waste, fraud, theft, inefficiency, and excess profits from all defense contracts and military expenditures.

Education

Because control over education is now being relegated to departments other than the Department of Education, we clarify that no federal agency, department, board, or other entity may exercise jurisdiction over any aspect of children's upbringing. Education, training, and discipline of children are properly placed in the domain of their parents.

We support the unimpeded right of parents to provide for the education of their children in the manner they deem best, including home, private or religious. We oppose all legislation from any level of government that would interfere with or restrict that liberty. We support equitable tax relief for families whose children do not attend government schools.

So that parents need not defy the law by refusing to send their children to schools of which they disapprove, compulsory attendance laws should be repealed.

Election Reform

To encourage free and fair elections, all candidates must be treated equally. We call for an end to designated "Major Party" status that gives an unfair advantage to some candidates by providing ballot access and taxpayer dollars, while requiring others for the same office to gather petition signatures or meet other, more stringent criteria.

We call for a repeal of all federal campaign finance laws (i.e. McCain-Feingold) due to their violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Family

We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

Gun Control

We emphasize that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen's protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.

We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.

We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Immigration

We affirm the integrity of the international borders of these United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders, including the regulation of the numbers and of the qualifications of immigrants into the country.

We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country.

We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens. We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion.

Religious Freedom

Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.

We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.

State Sovereignty

The federal government has no authority to mandate policies relating to state education, natural resources, transportation, private business, housing, and health care, ad infinitum.

We call upon the states to reclaim their legitimate role in federal affairs and legislation (See Amendment 10 United States Constitution) and thus cause the federal government to divest itself of operations not authorized by the Constitution and extract the federal government from such enterprises, whether or not they compete with private enterprise.

Welfare

Charity, and provision of welfare to those in need, is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Under no circumstances should the taxpayers of these United States be obligated, under penalty of law through forced taxation, to assume the cost of providing welfare for other citizens. Neither should taxpayers be indentured to subsidize welfare for persons who enter these United States illegally.

On the "Wasted Vote"

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Politically Exhausted

I am officially nearing exhaustion in hearing about this election. Don't get me wrong, I believe politics is important as it impacts Americans in a very real way. I remember when I was 18 I was eager to register and exercise my new right to vote and did so as soon as I was able. That year was when George Bush 41 was running for re-election against Bill Clinton. I rode my bike to my polling place and cast my 1st vote ever for none other than Ross Perot. I think I mainly made that choice based on the opinions of people close to me as I really had no idea what was going on in politics at that time.

My interest in politics didn't really peak until much later. Before I really started paying close attention to the issues and understanding where I stood in my political views, I was a registered Democrat (because my family are all Democrats) and I would base most of my political debate on popular talking points or whatever the MSM had to offer on the issues. I have always enjoyed a good exchange, call it a debate or an argument, I have always been "game" to get into it.

Once I really began to look more objectively at the issues, and also around the time when I became a Christian, it became obvious to me that I was better represented by the Republican Party. I was very zealous, if still not terribly well-informed, and went after those claiming to be Democrats with enthusiasm, thinking they must be fools for ascribing to a party that promotes such ignorant and irrational policies. For a good while I clung to the Republican Party and my conservative views with veracity. It defined me in a way, calling myself "Conservative" and the feeling that I had made the "right choice".

Another shift has happened since then. In the last few years as I have watched a Republican controlled Congress and Executive branch in action, in the few issues that are most important to me, there has been either no progress or backwards progress and, more and more, the Republican Party has represented my personal worldview in word only. My confidence in the GOP has eroded over the past few years as the line between Republican and Democrat have become more blurry. My disillusionment peaked in 2006, as I was utterly frustrated at the inability of either party to speak for me, and I voted for all 3rd party candidates in that election. I had broken away from the party line and chose each candidate based on their record and how closely their views matched my own. It was the 1st time I had refused to play "the game" of politics and voted my conscience, and I am glad I did it.

The conscience can be a terrible thing, especially when it is violated. This is something I learned in a very vivid way after voting to oust California Governor Grey Davis and replaced him with the utter disaster that is running California into the ground as we speak. I chose what was politically expedient over what I believed was right, and I have regretted it ever since. Every time the "Governator" does something idiotic I shake my head at him, and then at myself for helping make it possible.

The next time I cast my vote was in the recent primaries, in preparation for the 2008 General Election happening in just a few weeks. After reviewing the candidates, I cast my vote for Ron Paul on the Republican ticket. Men like Ron Paul, Alan Keyes and Chuck Baldwin are laughed at and disrespected by BOTH parties for having the "audacity" to even show up to run for office. These are men who intentionally go against the status quo because they hold personal principles and character above "winning". Alan Keyes was publicly disrespected by pretty much every other Republican candidate during the primaries, which hastened my disillusionment as I watched men of my party openly disrespecting a good and decent man who did not act in fear, but spoke from the heart about how far he believed this country has strayed from her roots. The Ron Paul's and Alan Keyes' of this country are Christians 1st and patriots 2nd. I think politicians may play a distant 3rd if I had to guess; but it is clear they have priorities like my own so as a matter of conscience I am obligated to support them, even if they cannot win. They represent the principles of a Constitutional form of government that we have long strayed from, and that I believe we need to return to.

This all may come off as a little idealistic to many, but what better way to be when choosing the person who will very soon be running the free world, and at such times as we find ourselves in now? Shouldn't we ask for excellence in the person who makes decisions and has influence that will profoundly affect our lives? The Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannity's of the world have dished out the "lesser of 2 evils" time after time, and where has that gotten us? It has led the GOP to put up a man like John McCain who, in the primaries, was scoffed at and ridiculed for the same maverick tendencies for which he is now being embraced and held out as the best the party has to offer? Despicable. I refuse to play the game this time around and further sear my conscience by voting for such a man whose only appeal, apparently, is that he is NOT Barrack Obama. I refuse to vote "against Obama" by voting for John McCain, as this is the same backwards logic conservatives ridiculed John Kerry supporters for when they vowed, "No more W" in 2004.

I am endorsing Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in the General Election. Chuck is a family man and Christian pastor who was supporting Ron Paul before Ron left the race. The Constitution Party is right on all of the issues that are important to me: abortion, immigration, liberty, marriage, the right to bear arms, small government and every other issue that I believe we should not compromise in protecting.

Call it a "wasted vote" if you like, but I believe there is no such thing as long as the person casting their vote can do so with a clear conscience.

Stand and Fight, or Lose

I am confused by John McCain's behavior regarding this whole economic bailout fiasco. The $700 billion dollar package failed, and well it should have as it would have been a huge step towards socializing our financial system. America has prospered partly because we have a free market economy and I believe too much over sight by the government would undermine that. The financial companies took a gamble by making junk loans, partly because the Fed forced them via an affirmative action like policy which required a certain number of mid to low-income recipients on their books, and I think also due in part to the housing market bubble making them a bit too aggressive.

However we got here, whether you want to put all the blame on one institution, party, individual, etc, we need to do what is right going forward. To me, "right" is letting the market self-correct. This has already started to happen: one of the warnings we had a couple weeks ago was that banks would start to falter, and that would mean the beginning of "the end". Well, the first part of the scenario has indeed happened, as evidenced by Washington Mutual (speaking of junk loans) failing. How did the market react? J.P. Morgan Chase stepped in and purchased them, which should have zero impact to the customers (like me) of WAMU. All WAMU assets are now secured by Chase Bank and the FDIC, so all is well. So the market has so far adjusted for this, and I believe it will continue to do so as companies in trouble continue to get bought out by companies with the capital to do so. Consumers so far seem less affected by all of this activity in terms of their confidence in the market. Whether this is due to complacency or just blind trust in the market is debatable, I suppose.

I also believe John McCain trusts the free market, which is why I am befuddled by his statements of late that the bailout is the way to go. He put his campaign on "pause" and vowed to go to DC and do his part as Republican leadership to get a deal done. Good start, and the polls showed that Americans, the same ones who 2 to 1 are against shouldering the burden of failed financial institutions who used bad business practices, agreed and supported him. He then claimed "victory" before the actual vote tool place and looked inept as it did not pass as expected.

Legislators are now working on bailout II, and plan to vote again Thursday. Now is McCain's opportunity to side with the American people and conservative principles and work to pass the Republican's answer to this, which would mean loans and insurance to hurting companies that would bolster consumer confidence and still keep responsibility where it belongs. John McCain should be familiar with the notion of standing and fighting according to principle, given his military background and reputation as a "maverick".

I believe the alternative to this is to agree with the Democrats and Obama, which is basically to disagree with the American people, which could be the beginning of "the end" for the McCain campaign for President.

Charlie Gibson: Proving the MSM is On It's Way to Extinction

I caught most of the ABC News September 11th interview of Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin and was extremely annoyed at how disrespectful and condescending anchorman Charlie Gibson was toward her. He was talking to her like she was a naive, 14 year old girl who needed a little of his "wisdom". His questions were tough, which is understandable, but the interviewer did a terrible job of keeping his own opinion out of the discussion. He cut her off several times, continually tried to get her to admit that she was "terrified" at the prospect of being V.P. and not up to the challenge; while she is clearly confident in her abilities, but says she is "humbled" by it all. I don't know about you, but that is exactly the response I want from a person in her position: a willingness to pursue a challenge for the greater good, while understanding the heaviness of the responsibility.

The full transcript of the interview is linked below (courtesy of NewsBusters) and it shows how what you ultimately saw on television was edited not just for brevity, but to paint Sarah Palin in a particular light.

GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready.

GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”

PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?

Here, Charlie rails on the notion that the Governor of Alaska is in over her head, and that it takes "hubris" for her to act with confidence under the circumstances. Now, "hubris" is one of those 50 cent words I don't use every day, but it implies not just confidence, but such confidence that acts in ignorance and ultimately leads to humiliation, whether intentional or not. Gibson is strongly implying she is unprepared, but too arrogant to know any better.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

It should be noted here that Gibson obviously doesn't have the grasp of the Bush doctrine that he thinks he does. Charles Krauthammer deals with this gaff by Gibson in a Washington Post article (link below). What I would like to ask Charles Gibson is, did it take "hubris" for you to ask a question such as this, given that your own understanding of the issue is apparently incorrect?

Palin's answer:

Note: Bolded text is what was omitted by ABC in the final televised interview.

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

What is of particular interest is the portion of this segment that ABC chose to leave on the cutting room floor. By removing Sarah's assertion that is the President's obligation, not just prerogative, to defend Americans, while leaving the more general statement that we have a right to defend ourselves, it paints Sarah Palin as some gun-toting war-monger.

The arrogance of Charlie Gibson is palpable. To presume to have a better grasp of the duties of public office than Sarah Palin when he has spent his life writing the news, while she has spent hers in public office making news and bringing real change to the city and state she presided over in an executive capacity.

I think ABC is showing their true colors, arrogantly assuming most people will never go beyond their skillfully edited OP/ED piece that could have been a bit of good reporting. Had it not been for the risk of highlighting Sarah Palin's integrity on important issues, the American people may have seen the whole interview.

Gibson has a similar sit-down with Obama earlier in the year, and here is how the questions asked of the two compare:

The following comment illustrates the difference between how Gibson interviewed Obama and Palin:

cedarford:A woman at a Hillary website (nom de plume - Nancy Kallitechnis) posted what she found reviewing Gibsons questions to Obama compared to the questions he later asked the VP nominee Palin:

The following is a breakdown of the questions asked of the nominees:

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Gibson, an experienced interviewer and anchorman, treats Obama like a golf buddy, but badgers Sarah Palin to death and spouts left wing opinionate drivel. How's that for balanced reporting?

Guess what MSM? The average person (like myself) is getting more informed by the day thanks to this whole "Internet" thing, so not only are you not the only game in town, but your absolute left-leaning bias is showing big time, and I sincerely hope it destroys you as people grow in their distaste of your approach to "reporting".


Hat Tip:
PAJAMAS MEDIA
NewsBusters

Full transcript of the interview(bolded text shows comments that were edited out):
mark LEVIN Show

Bush Doctrine:
Washington Post

McCain vs. Obama: Vive la Difference?

It has been suggested to me more than once that there is not alot of real difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. If you think of McCain's liberal leanings, this is easily conceivable, but it occurred to me that the real telling would be in doing a direct comparison of their voting records while in the Senate. Man, talk about some serious, time consuming research! Fortunately, thanks to the Internet, someone else thought if it before me and already did the hard task of chasing down the data and presenting it. I believe the person credited with the research (bottom of article) may be an Obama supporter, but his presentation was pretty balanced.

These are organized issue by issue, and in no particular importance:

Immigration


• 2007 Immigration Act - McCain and Obama both voted for it (right before it failed).
  A bill prohibiting illegal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to illegal purchase or sale of firearms, from gaining legal status - McCain and Obama both voted against it.
  
  
• Obama sponsored a bill that would raise the level of family sponsored immigrants from 226,000 to 567,000 - McCain voted against this.
  
  
• The following one is just confusing. I guess I don't understand politics:
  
  Amendment that declared English to be the common language of the U.S. - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
  Amendment making English the national language of the U.S. - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
  Amendment making English the unifying language - McCain and Obama voted "Yes"
  
  
• Triple-layered fencing along the Southern U.S. border - Both voted "Yes"
  
• Double-layered fencing - both voted "No".
  

The Constitution


• Amendment against flag desecration - McCain: "Yes", Obama (and Hillary): "No"
  
  
• Resolution criticizing moveob.org for bashing General Petraeus - McCain: "Yes", Obama: did not vote (interesting)
  
  
• Senate pay raises - Both "No" (only 6 voted "Yes")
  
  
• Amendment opposing criticism of the U.S. military - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
  
  
• Bill granting Habeas Corpus rights to U.S. detainees - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
  
  
• Same sex marriage amendment - both voted against this.
  

Katrina


• Allow an amendment vote to increase government financial aid to Katrina victims by providing food, bankruptcy relief and tax help - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
  
  
• Congressional commission to study what went wrong with Katrina - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
  

Iraq


• Congressional committee to study how contracts were to be handed out in Iraq and Afghanistan - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
  
  
• Additional $50 billion to fund Iraq - both voted "Yes"
  

Appointments


• Alito & Roberts - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
  
  
• Gonzalez - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
  
  
• Condoleeza Rice - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
  

Economics


• Bill limiting farm subsidies for married couples to $250,000 - cosponsored by McCain and Obama
  
  
• Economic stimulus - McCain: "Yes", Obama: did not vote
  
  
• Sunset of the estate tax - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
  
  
• Increase debt limit to 8.97 trillion dollars - both voted against this
  
  
• Extend pay as you go until 2011 - both voted "Yes"
  
  
• Temporary crude oil profits tax - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
  

Ethics


• Ethics bill - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes" (although he wasn't a cosponsor of the bill he touts it as his most important achievements)
  

Environment


• Drilling in ANWR - both voted "No"
  
  
• Carbon and mercury limits - both voted "Yes"
  

Education


• Pell Grant increase - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
  

Veterans


• $500 million to help vets deal with PSTD and substance abuse - McCain: "No", Obama: "Yes"
  

Free Trade


• CAFTA - McCain: "Yes", Obama: "No"
  
• Free Trade agreement with Oman: both voted in support
  

Stem Cells


• Embryonic stem cell research - both voted "Yes"
  

Synopsis:

They seem to agree on immigration, gay marriage, stem cells, and the environment, while differing on Supreme Court justices, taxes, Iraq, trade, and ethics.

As a strong proponent of Pro Life, I find McCain's soft stance on embryonic stem cell research particularly disconcerting, and I find it ironic that those who would consider McCain the "lesser of 2 evils" would do so partly based on Obama's very liberal stance on abortion. If respect for life is what moves you to be against abortion, there can be no reason for you to simultaneously support embryonic stem cell research. I suppose you could argue that their difference on appointing Supreme Court justices makes the Pro Life argument a mute point.

Add to that his voting record on protecting the institution of marriage and a historical soft stance on immigration, and I develop serious reservations about putting McCain at the helm even at the off chance it would usher in a Palin administration in 4 years. Add to my distaste that he is a certifiable "Global Warming Believer". The question to me is: can we afford 4 years of McCain, and more importantly, can I live with myself every day knowing I pulled the lever for him?

This coming from a Californian who is still regretful of putting the "Governator" in office; what an absolute disaster he has turned out to be.

Hat tip: Joe Rivett at 411mania.com.

Has McCain Changed His Tune, or Can We Still Call Him, "The Maverick"?

Needless to say, Conservatives have been absolutely unified and indeed electrified by the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket. I watched her speech and was impressed by how real she is when speaking to the American people, and I think this is primarily her appeal. Add to that what seems like a genuine conservative streak, a willingness to challenge the "status-quo" and the novelty of being a female and you end up with someone who has turned the McCain campaign completely around.

This speaks to McCain's political savvy and his willingness to surprise us; before his V.P. pick was official, I am of the impression that many secretly wished he would choose Palin, but publicly predicted otherwise because they weren't sure he had it in him. The consensus now seems to be that McCain has cemented his status as a "Maverick" by his choice of V.P., and maybe that is true.

Let me start by saying my motive here is not to rain on the veritable "Love Fest" that characterizes the Republican party as of the last 7 days. Alot of long-time conservatives are saying they haven't seen the party this energized since the early 90's, and others are even reminded of the conservative revolution brought by Reagan. This is good for politics; to have people passionately involved in the process, and having discussions about why their candidate is better. I believe firmly that people being informed and invested in the political process can only result in good for the country. This is why our political system works as it does, because through dissent and debate, and sharing information (true information) the best candidate wins.

A month ago it was not clear to me which candidate would best represent me. I was, and still am, certain that Obama's "big government" socialist utopian vision for America was completely against my sensibilities as a believer in a constitutional form of government. The men who founded this Republic were wise and knew how to best strike a balance between governing a nation while protecting the liberties of those they governed, and I think that formula can still work today. That said, I was as depressed as anyone to have the choices we had for President.

Every time the word "Maverick" is used to describe to McCain I get a little nervous, as I am reminded of what made him a maverick to begin with. Through his years in the Senate, he earned the reputation as the Republican who was willing to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats to get legislation passed. Now, I don't share the same distaste for bi-partisanship as some, and under the circumstances, it is the only way conservatives in Washington can get things done. As long as it is ultimately good for the country, I don't care who authors legislation. But, this was the main gripe conservatives had about McCain when he pulled ahead as the Republican nominee, and he was painted as a "traitor" by many not only for working with Democrats but more specifically for legislation that was promoted by him that was decidedly unrepresentative of traditional conservative values.

While I am as enchanted as the next person by Sarah Palin, as a person who analyzes EVERYTHING (maybe too much, my wife can tell you), I have to ask the question: Has John McCain changed since the time, not long ago, when his base was begrudgingly vowing to "hold their noses" and pull the lever for the "not-quite-conservative" Republican candidate for President?

Sarah Palin's conservative values are evident in her record in public life and in what is apparent about her personal life, but I can't say the same thing about McCain.

My wife and I discuss politics often, and recently she asked the question, "People write speeches for politicians, and they always say what is necessary to get elected: How do we know what they are really about?" This is not just a good question, it is THE question. When Obama, the young Senator from Illinois, announced his intent to campaign for the Democratic Party nomination, the only way we could measure his ability to act as President was by looking at his record. And indeed the Right has constantly criticized the Democratic nominee on the grounds that his record was not only short, but what record there is doesn't amount to much that proves he is ready for the job. It is painfully obvious that Democrats have caught "Obama Fever" for the same reason they were behind Kerry; because they think Obama can win.

What has always separated conservatives and liberals is principle. When those on the left were rooting for Kerry because they didn't want another Bush term, we accused them of running a "negative campaign" and thought less of them because they had no real reason for supporting John Kerry except political expediency and fear of the alternative. I frowned and shook my head when I saw bumper stickers urging people to vote Kerry because "A Vote for Kerry is a Vote Against Bush". How pathetic.

If we are honest, fair, and genuinely desire the best representation, we are obligated to hold McCain to the same scrutiny as we hold his opponent to. So we are again forced to step back and go beyond the McCain of late and use his record to get a true measure of the man who desires to be our President. And, we have an ethical obligation not to be accused of the same acts we have condemned others for.

I am glad at least for the political stir Palin has caused and for the wind being knocked out of the Obama campaign, but for me, the jury is still out on whether the McCain/Palin ticket is the best representation of my values as a Christian conservative. Palin is an exciting choice for VP, but we need to bear in mind she is not running for President, McCain is.

Out of the Woodwork...

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the morning the Sarah Palin announcement was made. Since then, I have been spending alot (some would say too much?) time traveling the blogosphere to gauge the reaction from both sides of the political aisle.

Conservatives have awakened from their McCain-induced slumber and have started getting involved in supporting the GOP candidate by giving to the campaign, buying yard signs, etc. I congratulate McCain and his team for their accomplishment and am glad folks are doing more than "holding their noses" this election year.

On the other hand, the wingnuts on the left have come out of the woodwork in direct opposition to McCain for his VP choice. As I read articles about Palin and the associated comments, I am overwhelmed by the volume of people who are passionately on either side of this issue.

The excitement of Republicans is pretty self-explanatory: they have some assurance that their traditional issues will get some representation now that Palin, proven pro-lifer and fiscal conservative, is on the ticket. And the GOP has a woman running who is capable of capturing as much media attention as she has, which is good for the election, especially in light of the way the MSM has sided on reporting on Obama developments, no matter how trivial. The numbers are in and Obama has gotten "special treatment" by the media, and this was probably the only way for the GOP to steal the limelight. There is more, but I will leave it at that.

Where it gets REALLY interesting, and to a degree a little puzzling (call me naive), is the hateful, panic-stricken response from those who support Obama (or post as "Conservative" while secretly supporting Obama, *wink*). The rhetoric ranges from commenting about how foolish McCain is for his choice to downright "Chicken Little-esque" statements about how the world will come to an end if McCain dies (touching they are suddenly so concerned for his well being) and Sarah Palin is at the helm.

Let's assume that the liberals are correct and that the Republican Party is a bunch of kool-aid drinking, lemmings-off-a-cliff, political morons who do not know what is best for this country.

My question to those so thoroughly against the McCain/Palin ticket is: Why are you trying to so hard to talk them into averting disaster? Why not let the logical end, which according to you is utter implosion, come naturally?

The answer is, they are threatened by the impending 4 years of Republican rule that Sarah Palin represents. Who can blame them. I mean, she respects life, liberty, and the individual pursuit of happiness (hey, that sounds familiar) that they despise so very much. The reaction we are seeing is normal when a party has been utterly complacent, resting on it's laurels arrogantly assuming they had the election in the bag, and are suddenly blind-sided by the likelihood that, once again, they will come up losers.

So Much for Obama's "Bounce"

McCain and his people made an excellent choice in Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska if for no other reason than Obama's thunder has officially been stolen.

The "Bounce" Obama got from the DNC, which ended up being around 4% (less than stellar as the average is ~6%)?

The mantra of "Change" echoed ad nauseam for months and months?


Put the first female V.P. (which Obama had a chance at) in your "Change Pipe" and smoke it! And wave bye-bye to your "bounce".

At this point, it isn't formal yet, and I am waiting to her the radio broadcast but it is good to have some assurance that Obama will lose the Presidency in 2008.

Love Him or Hate Him, He's Still Got It...

I read the speech to be delivered by President Bill Clinton at the DNC this evening, and I have to admit I was impressed. Whether you can stand him or not, you would be lying if you said he wasn't the master at delivery. He was clearly in his element, doing what he loved. Obama stopped by in an impromptu fashion to thank the Clintons and the Bidens for their support; I would say he owes former President Clinton BIG TIME for delivering the way he did.

And I am NOT a Clinton fan by any stretch...

Some speculate this is "The End" for the Clinton political machine; I wish I could believe that, but the cautious part of me knows that these people will keep coming back like Jason Voorhees.

Why Marriage is Important and Should NOT Be Tinkered With

I have been spending alot of time on various websites studying and debating issues that are near and dear to my heart such as protecting traditional marriage and the plausibility of the theory of climate change. The following is a response I wrote to a well-meaning advocate of same-sex marriage over at Pajamas Mediawho couldn't fathom what all the fuss was about or what harm 2 people who love each other getting married could have on anyone else. It went on a bit longer than I anticipated, but it describes well my heart for marriage and children:

For centuries, the institution of marriage, whether the law recognized it or not, has been between one man and one woman for the primary purpose of bearing children. Why is this good? Because if people weren’t getting hitched and having kids, we wouldn’t be here. It’s a matter of survival.

Fact: Children grow up healthier and more balanced when they are raised by their biological mother and father who are in a committed relationship (marriage).

I am describing the ideal situation for the main benefactor of marriage: children. They are the next generation. If we screw them up, our society is also screwed.

The 60’s (the “me” era, sexual revolution, feminism, Eastern religion…) ushered in a whole new concept of relationships that are very sexualized, and sex has become more about personal gratification than procreating. When people get counseled in preparation for marriage, they are invariably told to “plan” their families; don’t have kids right away, take a vacation, see the world before you get “weighted down” with offspring. The parenting philosophy of today is centered on the parents; making sure they get lots of “me” time and rest, because after all, mommies and daddies are better mommies and daddies when the are in a good mood and aren’t all worn out from parenting, right?

My point is, marriage is ultimately about children, and children have become an after-thought, something to do when the “real fun” is over. This also applies to same sex marriage and what I described as the ideal environment in which to raise children. Let's say 2 committed, in love, homosexual men decide they want to get married and make a family. It’s the American dream, right? So it sounds fair, just let them do it. To accomplish this, we loosen up the definition of marriage a little, what’s the harm? Ted and Steve buy a house together, make out their wills and share a common name as a sign of their love and commitment.

The next logical step is to have children… but here we have an obvious problem, don’t we? The newlyweds have no choice but to adopt, so they do. Or maybe they find a woman big-hearted enough to be artificially inseminated with either of their sperm and carry the baby to term. Voila! Ted and Steve are a white picket fence and a dog away from the complete American dream! And why shouldn’t they have all this?

1. Marriage isn’t recognized and supported by the state so you and I can “pronounce our undying love”. This is drivel we inherited from the generation of “me”, who are focused less on serving their fellow man than fulfilling their own personal desires.

2. The children that will result from either being adopted and raised by Ted and Steve, or the surrogate situation I described will not be raised in the “ideal”, so why do it? Ted and Steve have very compelling reasons for wanting children. They are driven by their desire to paint the perfect family picture and prove that “family” can mean more than it has traditionally. They want to make a powerful political statement about their community. The problem with these motives, regardless of how noble they may sound is how self-centered they are; parenthood should be child-centered, not parent-centered. If you want kids for any other reason than to serve them, then you are starting off on the wrong foot and shouldn’t bother.

This same thing applies to single people wanting children, unmarried heterosexuals who don’t want to marry, or any other situation you can dream up that ISN’T 2 biological, opposite sex people.

The real reason marriage is so good for America is that it creates and fosters the next generation so in 20 years there IS an America.

We should remember that God originally defined marriage, and He loves it dearly. Changing it's definition is no small thing and the impact will not be a good one should it happen.

The Unreported Good News in Iraq

Read this article today at Commentary Magazine by way of Instapundit. The glaring lack of exposure of the significant positive developments in Iraq by our MSM is a perfect example of their obvious left-leaning political bias. They are happy to report deaths of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians, but when the Surge works and the most violent regions of Iraq are stabilizing? Headlines are chalk full of stories about Don Imus, real estate, etc...

Personally, I am interested in strategic news that actually impacts my family and my country, and a stable Iraq that is no longer a haven for terrorists fit that.

Here are some key excerpts from the article. It is worth reading in it's entirety:

[t]he US military is to hand over security control of the former Sunni insurgent bastion of Anbar province to Iraqi forces in the next 10 days, a US military spokesman announced on Monday . . . Anbar would be the tenth of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be handed back to Iraqi forces by the US-led coalition amid a push to transfer security control of the entire country back to Baghdad. Anbar province in western Iraq, the country’s largest, was the epicentre of a brutal Sunni Arab-led fight against the US military after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. In the early years of the insurgency, US forces fought raging battles in the province, especially in the capital Ramadi and the nearby city of Fallujah.

The security environment in Iraq continues to improve, with all major violence indicators reduced between 40 to 80% from pre-surge levels. Total security incidents have fallen to their lowest level in over four years.

Overall, the communal struggle for power and resources is becoming less violent. Many Iraqis are now settling their differences through debate and the political process rather than open conflict. Other factors that have contributed to a reduction in violence include the revitalization of sectors of the Iraqi economy and local reconciliation measures.

It goes on and on, but the picture is clear. The left is not only not concerned about Iraq, they are petrified of success because it would validate a Bush policy that they have disagreed with from the start, and put the Democratic party in a bad light in an election year.

Is the Smart Money on Hillary as McCain's VP?

While the prospect of having Hillary anywhere near the White House frightens me to no end, would it be a good choice for John McCain to ask her to run alongside him as his V.P.? Understand that I am only speaking in terms of political expediency here; if it were up to me, neither of them would be running the free world. But reality is what it is, and this election year is not ideal for a principled Christian conservative like me. Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily makes a compelling argument here.

If you consider what Hillary accomplished in the popular vote, and just how divided Democratic voters apparently are over Obama and Mrs. Clinton, it makes sense for McCain to go after those people who deep down really want to vote for Hillary. Wouldn't a McCain/Hillary ticket guarantee the bigger states won by her, including California and New York?

Also consider just how alike all 3 of them are in terms of legislative record:

They aren't that far apart politically. In fact, McCain, Obama and Hillary have co-sponsored 86 pieces of legislation in the U.S. Senate since 2005. They agree on the border. They agree on amnesty. They agree on global warming. They agree on more than they disagree.

Actually, this makes pairing Hillary with either Obama or McCain somewhat logical, does it not? Maybe Hillary really is unstoppable politically.

Of course, McCain making Hillary his running mate would go nowhere in winning over the conservative base. But hasn't he already proven, by virtue of the fact that he got the GOP nomination, that he really doesn't need the far right to win the White House?

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide

This was welcome news from ProtectMarriage.com.

"Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union 'between a man and a woman.'"

This initiative actually started before 4 California Supreme Court justices decided to speak for special interests and legislate from the bench instead of interpreting existing laws as they are appointed to do.

Californians have already made their will known in 2000 when they voted 61% to keep marriage defined as "between one man and one woman", and they have not changed their minds, apparently.

“'The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,' said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. 'We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election...'"

By amending the State Constitution, and I am confident this initiative will pass, we will go a long way to protect this institution that is so utterly important to the survival of our society. This is not a trivial thing at all; Redefining marriage has been tried before in other countries with negative results.

It is also naive to think that this amendment would mean the end of this battle, as those who wish to define marriage for themselves and their personal interests will not stop here. The special interests who want to destroy marriage have proven themselves to be powerful and influential and they will not rest. Nor should those of us in this country who love marriage and want to keep it as it is.

Remember, if you live in a state other then California and are concerned about this issue, stay alert and be informed about this as it is only a matter of time before a similar decision goes before YOUR state.

McCain Welcomes Obama With Fresh Criticism

Not surprisingly, Barack Obama claimed the nomination of his party this evening, and he did it with his usual flair. No doubt the man is eloquent and able to whip any crowd into a frenzy, but I still have NO EARTHLY IDEA what he would do as President, besides raise our taxes and "do lunch" with the likes of Ahmadinejad.

What was the response of the "Presumptive Nominee" to the GOP, John McCain?

He went on the attack immediately, which is exactly what he needs to do to compensate for the lack of enthusiasm conservatives have for his campaign. It would be foolish of McCain to think he can out speak his opponent; he must go after Obama's record (what there is of it) and anything in Barack's past that can undermine the confidence people have in him to lead on important issues like the war in Iraq.

A couple excerpts from McCain's response to the Illinois Senator clinching the nomination:

"Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General (David) Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse,"

McCain has already set the direction of the debate to Iraq, and Obama's intention to pull troops out immediately if elected. He simultaneously highlights the fact that HE has actually been on the ground there and spoken to those who have the best view of what is happening, the troops; while pointsing out how Obama hasn't even set foot in Iraq. McCain's war record is already well known so there really is no comparison between the 2 candidates on this issue, unless you are a big fan of the "Cut and Run" strategerie...

"They've seen me put our country before any president _ before any party _ before any special interest _ before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always."

McCain has embraced his own "imperfections" as a Senator and a Presidential candidate, which may just muzzle those who were planning on pointing out just how imperfect his voting record has been as Senator as seen through the eyes of staunch conservatives. I believe this to be a good move, not to mention his lack of apology for being historically bi-partisan. This paints him as the guy you may not agree with on every issue, but at the end of the day, you can trust him and he sticks to his guns. It also impresses independents.

Good start for McCain by coming out strong and not letting Obama catch his breathe before the next fight begins. The question is, can he beat Obama in the fall, after being out spent and out-gunned in the charisma department?

Michael Yon

In my travels on the Web, I came across an article by Michael Yon, a correspondent who has been spending a good amount of time alongside our troops in Iraq. He offers a very frank portrayal of the war that is truly from the perspective of the soldiers on the ground.

He is far from naive about what is going on over there, and he seems not to be beholden to any political bias, so his perspective is particularly interesting to me.

My main complaint about the "news" that is made available about Iraq and just in general, is that there is always a political motive driving the person or company presenting it. The end result is not really "news" at all, but a subjective view of what is going on based on what the presenter wants you to think or feel about a topic.

This is frustrating to me and I imagine any person who simply wants to know what is really happening. When I am approached and asked what my opinion is on the situation in Iraq, I have to answer truthfully that I do not have enough good information to form a strong opinion. At the end of the day, I am left to doubt the completeness and accuracy of the information I have access to.

Michael Yon seems to me to be genuinely interested in informing, in an un-bias fashion, those who have ears to hear what is happening. I respect that and when he gets flack from the MSM because he doesn't toe the line like the rest of them he responds in an honest and truthful way, without resorting to the kinds of petty attacks he is subject to.

So if you haven't been to his website, have a look at his pictures and articles which show the human side of the war in Iraq, whether the human is your enemy or your friend.

McCain Flopping On Gay Marriage?

The Republican Presidential hopeful was seen on The Ellen Degeneres show earlier today discussing the issue of gay marriage with the openly lesbian host. Here is a key quote which I think sums up his stance on the issue:

I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman, and I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue; and I along with many, many others wish you every happiness.

This was in response to Ellen's oft-used comparison between the obstacles homosexuals have encountered trying to gain special rights for their community to that of the Civil Rights struggles of blacks and the fight women went though for their right to vote.

Some conservatives will try to characterize McCain as weak on marriage, mostly based on his refusal to support a Gay Marriage Ban a few years ago in the Senate. They will mischaracterize his motive as anti-traditional marriage, but all he was doing was trying to preserve individual state's rights to decide the issue for themselves without federal "nosing".

I have definite concerns about McCain; his stance on the environment is frightening and in spite of his recent tough talk about immigration, he is definitely weak an that issue, but I am not worried about him on the marriage issue.

I suppose only time will tell if whether or not my confidence is misplaced.

The "Apathetic Party" Could Help Destroy Marriage

With all of the speculation that conservative voters may not make it to the polls in November, it is difficult to stay motivated and get charged up about exercising my right to vote. I can surely understand the frustration of not believing any candidate really represents your view of the world. It seems like every one of them has their issues, and certainly none are a "perfect match". I also think the message needs to be sent to the GOP that if they don't make some changes, they will not have a party. And maybe sitting out would be one way to get that point across.

With the recent decision by the California Supreme Court making any ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, my perspective changed quite a bit and I find myself feeling a sense of duty and purpose to get to polls in November no matter what.

Now that these 4 activist judges in California have ruled this way, it opens the door for other states to follow suit. Nationally, the California legislature has historically taken the role of setting an example for other state legislatures, especially in family court rulings. This means we need to act fast to reverse this extreme decision that does not reflect the will of the majority or the family values of most American's.

The only way to reverse this decision is to get an initiative on the ballot so the voters can make an amendment to the California Constitution to protect the definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman". Efforts are already under way to accomplish this, and it looks likely that there will be an opportunity to vote this coming election on a measure to protect this institution that is foundational to ANY society.

This also means that those conservative voters who are looking to punish the GOP by staying home on election day will also miss an extremely important opportunity to have their voice heard on this issue! On top of that, liberal voters who are more motivated (at least so far) could get out the vote and decide the future of marriage for all of us. We cannot sit back in our armchairs and watch this happen!

Remember, there are 2 types of sin:

1. Commission - intentional, where you know it is wrong, but do it anyway.
2. Omission - where you know what is right, but fail to act

If you are not a resident of California, and you think this doesn't, or couldn't impact your state and your family, don't be fooled! It is only a matter of time before citizens of your state who are interested in redefining marriage take their case to the Supreme Court as well (if they haven't already), and your state justices would have an easier time making a similar decision about gay marriage because California has already laid the track.

See ProtectMarriage.com for more details on the Marriage Protection Act, and do your part to protect marriage before it is too late!

California Supreme Court Forces Homosexual Marriage on California

I get regular emails from Capitol Resource Institute and the latest news regarding Homosexual Marriage in California is truly disturbing.

In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled today that homosexual marriage bans are unconstitutional.

This is a clear case of judicial activism at it's worst, as California voters were already given the opportunity to have their voices heard on this issue in the year 2000 when Proposition 22 was put on the ballot. At that time, voters decided by overwhelming mandate that they believed the definition of marriage in California should be limited to include one man and one woman.

The California Supreme Court basically ignored that, and decided the fate of our state according to their own political agenda and the political agenda of the homosexual community.

I have stated this before on this blog, but it bears repeating: changing the definition of marriage to "whatever" is not just a cute way for the homosexual community to "express their love", as much as they would like you to think that; it has more to do with legitimizing their perverted lifestyle. If it was only a matter of having the same legal rights as married couples in terms of estate, insurance, housing, etc, they already have those things by way of common law marriage and legal partnership.

On the significantly more dangerous side, you have historical evidence that shows what happens to a society when you take something foundational like marriage and family and re-define it into obscurity; the society crumbles because marriage becomes less necessary and the family institution weakens. Those behind the political homosexual agenda are well aware of this, and the affect that having "2 mommies" or "2 daddies" has on children. But they choose to ignore the statistics and the mountain of evidence because of their extreme politically charged beliefs.

On top of all that, it goes against everything our country was built on to allow a minority voice such as the homosexual political machine to speak for the majority of people in this country who believe homosexuals should have equal civil rights, but that marriage is a privilege that should be exclusive to one man and one woman.

It is crystal clear to me, but people in this country, and apparently our judicial representatives, have given in and bought the lie that the homosexual agenda is pushing.