|
|
Written by Pastor Brad Cranston
|
|
| |
The state of New Jersey has delivered the latest in a series of marriage victories. Same-sex marriage supporters canceled their vote on S. 1967, a bill that would have redefined marriage in the Garden State. It appears, that after recent victories which maintained marriage as being between one man and one woman in the states of Maine and New York, that New Jersey's liberal legislators feared the consequences of attempting to push the homosexual agenda on the citizens of New Jersey. With a Republican governor taking office on January 19, 2010, it appears highly unlikely that homosexual "marriage" will see the light of day in New Jersey anytime soon. |
|
|
Written by Pastor Brad Cranston
|
|
| |
MAINE BECOMES THE 31ST STATE TO REJECT HOMOSEXUAL "MARRIAGE."
Maine's rejection of a sodomite "marriage" law has huge implications for Iowa. A victory in Maine would have given the homosexual lobby a tremendous psychological advantage and momentum in their continuing effort to legitimize and legalize immoral behavior, and even more so under our current pro-sodomite Obama administration.
We need to thank the Lord for this victory and continue to increase the pressure on our Iowa legislature to Let Us Vote! That is why when I finish this email I am sending out a CALL TO ACTION for everyone to contact your state legislators and the governor TODAY and let them know that the citizens of Iowa want the same opportunity to that the citizens of Maine had yesterday.
Let us continue to pray and work to see Biblical values restored to our state. |
After the Second World War we were concerned about the spread of Communism, and rightfully so. Then in 1989, under the Reagan Administration, the Berlin Wall fell and Communism receded and the world became a safer and more secure place. Freedom spread and the whole world prospered. Obviously some more than others but it could be said that all benefitted in some way. Certainly here in America our wealth escalated to literally unbelievable heights that could not have been imagined just 50 years ago and certainly not 100 years ago. As with every success the seeds of failure are sown and if one is not careful those seeds will mature and grow to the point where the success will be destroyed.
The danger to our country does not really come from without but rather from within and this has been pointed out by patriots of the past such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. This certainly is the case now as we see the current administration and to a large part the Democratic Party moving towards a Marxist Muslim position. For those that doubt this or think this idea is patently wrong consider the facts: Van Jones the “Green Czar” an admitted Communist, with a capital C, Anita Dunn, Obama’s Communication Director who praised Mao as one of the people she admired most, the same Mao that has killed millions of his own countrymen; and last but not least the canceling of the White House National Prayer Day and then turning around and promoting a Moslem prayer march in Washington.
America is a singular exception in the history of nations. Tyranny, poverty and hopelessness is the norm, historically and now. What makes America unique is that for some reason God brought together a group of men who founded this country on Christian principles and gave us a Constitution that, if followed, would bind the hands of those that would enslave us.
Unfortunately we have drifted far from the Constitution, and those Christian principles and are now cascading towards the abyss of slavery. When the government gives us something, such as health care, it carries with it the ability to say who gets it and who does not, as well as being able to punish those who don’t do what the bureaucrates tell them to.
The answer to the problem is simple and that is returning to the Constitution and the restrictions it puts on the government (read Bureaucrats) to interfere in our lives. It is the implementation that is tough. But there is no choice. It is either that or eventual returning to the world’s norm of tyranny, poverty and hopelessness. America, meaning everyone of us, wake up!
|
|
|
Written by Tod Perdelwitz
|
|
| |
Today I attended Congressman Dave Loebsack's town-hall meeting at Southeastern Community College in Burlington, Iowa. My estimate of the attendance is approximately 230, with 70% to 80% opposed to the healthcare proposals coming out of Washington. Reasons ranged from economic, to quality of care, to the one I believe trumps all the rest: Liberty. The way the meeting was organized, all the people in attendance were given cards on which to write their questions. The questions were put into a basket and cards were drawn out by people in the crowd. All in all, a fairly decent way to run things. The question I wanted to ask was, "Article I, Sections 8 and 9 of the U.S. Constitution, which list the powers of Congress, make no mention of government involvement in health care. Also, the 10th Amendment prohibits Congress from acting outside of the specific powers given to it by the Constitution. With this in mind, there are only two options for Congress to act upon these health care proposals: Do you advocate amending the Constitution to allow this legislation, or will you commit treason against the Constitution?" As my card was not drawn, I didn't get to ask Mr. Loebsack this question. However, another member of the audience asked something very similar. I was absolutely astounded at the response. Congressman Loebsack showed his absolute disdain for the Constitution, and his willingness to ignore it anytime he chooses. Thanks to our local radio station KCPS, I've been able to obtain the following audio clip of the question and answer. Click here to play the clip. Please listen, and realize the gravity of the situation we are in. Politicians ask us to believe that they are interested in Liberty, and in the rule of law. But when push comes to shove, it's our liberties and our Constitution that get the shove. |
|
|
Written by Tod Perdelwitz
|
|
| |
Most of us have heard of the famous sign on Harry S Truman's desk, "The buck stops here." Bill Clinton replaced it with the catchphrase, "It's the Economy, Stupid."
The current administration would like you to think they are the direct descendants of those lines of thinking. They ask us to believe they're the heirs of President Truman even as they mouth phrases like, "we inherited this recession".
They ask us to suspend disbelief while tax cheats run the Treasury Department; while this administration embarks on an unprecedented, multi-pronged attack on the free market economy.
The means used to date include so-called bailouts, stimulus programs, and nationalization of banks. They now have proposals on the table to tax carbon dioxide emissions (the stuff that comes out of your lungs when you breathe). And last but not least, they intend to nationalize the health care system.
"Nationalized health care" is such a neat, clinical term. It really doesn't convey the essence of what they are trying to accomplish.
Yes, a government take-over of the health care industry would likely bankrupt the nation for the foreseeable future. Yes, within a short time it would destroy the best health care system in the world. Yes, the US health care industry, responsible for the vast majority of medical breakthroughs in the world, would shrivel and die.
But at it's root, the nationalization of health care is about you. It's about who controls what doctor you see, who decides what treatment you receive, and how much your life is worth.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Pastor Brad Cranston
|
|
| |
| In a report released a few days ago, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation gave scores to major TV networks based on the number of homosexual characters were in their shows. ABC was #1 with 24% of it's shows using homosexuals. This is good news to the homosexual activists who know that the willingness of the American public to tune in to shows featuring homosexuals is an indication American acceptance of their deviant behavior. Christians need to do the right thing... turn off any TV show and refuse to watch any movie that features a homosexual character. Report |
|
|
Written by Pastor Brad Cranston
|
|
| |
| Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) lists some great reasons why the only good vote regarding Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court is a "No" vote. Bob Bennett a No on Sotomayor |
|
|
Written by Pastor Brad Cranston
|
|
| |
Here is the text of Senator Brownback's amendment (SA 1610) to the Hate Crimes Bill amendment (SA 1511) to the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, S 1390. This amendment passed 78-13. This is a good amendment to an otherwise horrendous amendment: SA 1610. Mr. BROWNBACK submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 1511 proposed by Mr. Leahy (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Specter, Mr. Franken, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Casey, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Reid) to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:
Strike page 16, line 24 through page 17, line 7 and insert the following:
SEC. __X. CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION.
Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or substantially burdens any exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, association, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to--
(1) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or
(2) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.
|
|
|
Written by Pastor Brad Cranston
|
|
| |
Yesterday I was able to join an hour long conference call with Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) regarding Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination hearings. Here is a brief list of the issues that were addressed: 1. When Senator DeMint, in a private interview, asked Sotomayor if babies had rights before birth her reply was, "I've never thought about it." 2. Sotomayer has said that precedence is the key factor in determining a case. The right answer is the Constitution. 3. In her answers during the hearings Sotomayor has been changing her previously stated positions, thus undermining her own credibility. 4. In regards to her temperament, the kind, understanding woman you are seeing in the hearings does not mesh with the condescending, hard to deal with reputation that Sotomayor has as a judge. 5. In regards to firearms possession, Sotomayor is on the record as stating that the "possession of firearms does not constitute a fundamental right." 6. She has stated that precedents set by foreign countries should be considered in deciding cases in the United States. In summary, the woman you are seeing in the hearings does not accurately represent the left wing liberal that Sotomayor has proven herself to be. When the time comes to vote on her confirmation, we will need to appeal to our Senators to vote, "NO!" For more information on Sonia Sotomayor's beliefs and confirmation hearings go to: Order in the Court.org Quote of the Day |
|
|
Written by Tod Perdelwitz
|
|
| |
I'm trying to figure out if I should believe what Judge Sotomayor said today, or what she said in 2001. CNN reports: Under tough questioning from Republicans, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor conceded Tuesday she made a bad play on words in her controversial statement that a "wise Latina woman" could reach a better conclusion than a white man.
She went on to say, "I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging." You can read the whole article here. So which is it? Do we believe her now or then? I think her recently overturned decision on the Connecticut firefighters' case speaks volumes. |
|
