CitizenLink & Family Research Council with a few scriptures thrown in for good measure…

John 14:1-6
14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”

5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.  NIV

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

Take Action: Ask Congress to Protect Talk Radio

Democrats have threatened to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which would force conservative stations to broadcast liberal viewpoints. 

Radio broadcasters and some members of Congress are calling on Democrats to celebrate July Fourth — dubbed “Radio Independence Day” — by pledging to protect the airwaves from censorship.

Congressional Democrats have threatened to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which was put in place by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949 to force the nation’s TV and radio broadcasters to make time for voices on both sides of controversial issues. It was dropped as new technologies offered an abundance of sources for information.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., has introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905), which would prohibit the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

“Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control of political views on the commercial and religious airwaves of America, and it must be opposed,” Pence told Family News in Focus.

At a press conference Wednesday, Pence called on Congress to support the Broadcaster Freedom Act before July Fourth.

“If 218 members of Congress sign the discharge petition,” he said, “we can send the Fairness Doctrine to the ash heap of broadcast history, where it belongs.”

Conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham joined Pence in standing against the Fairness Doctrine.

“This is nothing more than an attempt to have government regulate one of the most effective forms of political discussion today,” she said.

Last summer, 309 members of Congress — including 113 Democrats — supported a moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine.

“With 113 Democrats supportive of this measure the first time around, we should have no problem securing the signatures needed for this petition,” said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action. “The fact that no Democrats have signed on tells you how much power Leader Pelosi wields over her rank-and-file members.”

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

Matt 5:10…..10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. NIV

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

Canadian Pastor Fined after Speaking Against Homosexuality

A Canadian human-rights tribunal has ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, WorldNetDaily reported.

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal ordered the Rev. Stephen Boissoin to stop expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and to pay $7,000 in “damages for pain and suffering.”

The decision came after Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer, Alberta, newspaper in 2002 that included this statement: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

Darren Lund, a professor at the University of Calgary, complained about the letter.

“Dr. Darren Lund does not believe my views are politically correct,” Boissoin told Family News in Focus. “He believes they are immoral, and he believes I need to be re-educated.”

Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, said the case has broad implications. 

“(The commission is) being used and abused … making restrictions on people,” he said. “That should be a warning sign for not only in Canada, but across the U.S., as well.”

In a similar case in New Mexico, a Christian couple recently was fined by a human-rights commission for refusing to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.”

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

Lev 18:22…..22 “‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. NIV

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

Cohabitation Becomes Mainstream Around the World

An analysis of cohabitation, marriage and divorce data from 13 countries, including the United States, shows living together has become mainstream, USA Today reported.

The National Marriage Project study of a sampling of Western European and Scandinavian nations, Australia, Canada and New Zealand found 15 percent to 30 percent of couples live together, compared with about 10 percent in the United States.

A previous study by the same group showed that since 1970, the number of Americans living together has increased from about 500,000 heterosexual couples to more than 5 million. In the United States from 1995 to 2005, the marriage rate declined almost 20 percent.

“Americans have downplayed qualities that are vital for a healthy marriage culture — commitment and faithfulness,” said Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action. “The de-emphasis on these qualities has profoundly and negatively influenced this and successive generations.

“If Americans want to strengthen marriage in this country, they need to support it in the home, the church and at the ballot box as the union of one man and one woman who together raise their children.”

The National Marriage Project report also cites findings from earlier studies showing children of cohabiting couples are more likely to experience emotional problems, alcoholism and drug abuse.

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

Gen 2:23-24…..23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.  NIV

(Notice that does not say united to his girlfriend, or his significant other. You get the picture.)

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

New York Lets Troubled Kids Choose Their Gender

New York’s Office of Children and Family Services, which runs the state’s juvenile-detention centers, has quietly adopted new rules that cater to lesbian, gay, bisexual and “transgender” youth in its custody, The Village Voice reported.

“Transgendered” youth can request private sleeping quarters and be called by their chosen name. The new guidelines even allow boys to wear girls’ panties and bras, use makeup and shave their legs.

The policy shift and new rules, which were approved without fanfare or even a press release, follow a 2006 lawsuit by a “transgendered” kid.

Caleb H. Price, policy analyst at Focus on the Family, said this is another example of how the pro-gay, pro-“transgender” agenda is spreading across America.
 
“These activists say there are not two genders, but theoretically an infinite number,” he said. “They argue that gender is fluid, and that you may select, create and express your own.

“These young people need professional attention and healing to help them embrace their God-given, biological sex. Instead, New York is helping these gender-confused juveniles to embrace disordered thinking and beliefs.”

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

Gen 1:27…..27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  NIV

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

Kozinski: No Judge of Character 

For as long he has presided on the bench, the Chief Justice of the Ninth Circuit Court has been a staunch advocate of free speech. And the Los Angeles Times thinks it knows why. The paper discovered that Judge Alex Kozinski, who was presiding over a lower court obscenity case, had something in common with the suit’s defendant. They both have an affinity for hard-core pornography. In a revelation that is shocking the legal community, Kozinski posted on a personal website nauseating photos of bestiality, striptease, transsexuals, and other images too graphic to describe. When confronted by the Times, Kozinski said that the photos were for his private use and he was unaware the content could be viewed by the general public. “Is it prurient?” Kozinski asked yesterday. “I don’t know what to tell you… It’s part of life.”

As of this morning, he had yet to recuse himself from the current case involving sexual fetish videos. Meanwhile, Kozinski insists that the content of his site would not qualify as “obscenity,” a stance he’s taken repeatedly in his official capacity. “When he learned that there were filters banning pornography and other materials from computers in the court’s Pasadena offices, he led a successful effort to have the filters removed,” notes the Times. In other words, Kozinski not only defended the rights of people to sell revolting–and potentially illegal–smut, but he advocated that his staff be able to view this content at work! “This is a funny joke,” the judge said about the controversy. But few Americans are laughing. They, like FRC, believe that Kozinski is ill-equipped to try an obscenity case when he clearly does not understand the definition of obscene. We call for his recusal in this case and a reexamination of his fitness as chief of one of the most important courts in the entire nation.

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

Lev 18:23…..23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. NIV

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

A Crude Awakening/No Relief in the Pipeline 

With Americans driving less and paying more when they do, some members of Congress are looking to bring some much-needed relief to people at the pump. Yesterday, House Republicans strengthened their call to begin drilling off the nation’s coast in what is believed to be an extremely oil-rich area. Although the drilling would be at least 50 miles away from shore and reap “enough oil to replace Middle East imports for 35 years,” Democrats stubbornly refused and deep-sixed the proposal by a 9-6 party-line vote. For almost three decades, a federal law has prevented drilling in U.S. waters, but the area under new scrutiny would be well beyond the moratorium’s reach. While the liberal leadership sits on its environmental laurels, the frustration is building. Reports that China is drilling for oil 60 miles outside of Cuba is adding more fuel to the fire. Pretty soon, the rest of the world will be racing to our shores to unlock the natural resources we refuse to touch.

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) was just one of the many frustrated members angered that Congress is leaving billions of barrels of American oil untapped. “Democrats were voting in line with their leadership, but they certainly weren’t voting in line with the 104 million American families struggling to make ends meet in a world of $4.05 gasoline.” Of course, the “green” crowd has been lobbying leaders to oppose the drilling and embrace biofuels as the “moral” alternative. They would rather starve the earth’s poor of its food supply to make their ethanol than intrude on two miles of animal habitat. Tell me, where is the morality in that?

Homosexual Activists Draw Battle Lines 

A how-to manual for forcing same-sex “marriage” on all 50 states was just unleashed on the ACLU’s website. The strategy, which was outlined in a succinct six-page memo called “Make Change, Not Lawsuits,” urges couples who marry in California next week to proceed with caution. Homosexuals recognize that their movement to marry does not have the broad support of the American people. Instead of bringing lawsuits in every corner of the country, groups like the Human Rights Campaign, GLADD, Lambda Legal and others, ask homosexuals to wait for state legislatures to tackle the issue.

To the question of whether couples should sue their home states and employers to recognize their unions, the memo says no. “[It] unnecessarily angers a public whose support we ultimately want to have… Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and it will certainly make it take much longer.” Like us, this coalition recognizes that everything is riding on the California marriage amendment. This is one battle that both sides cannot afford to lose. Get involved in preserving marriage.

silver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glittersilver glitter

Rom 1:18-32

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.  NIV

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “CitizenLink & Family Research Council with a few scriptures thrown in for good measure…

  1. How dare that Kozinski guy be a “staunch advocate of free speech”. Just what country does he think this is, anyway?I mean, who really needs a free speech advocate? It’s not like Congress would ever try to limit free speech, for instance by telling a radio station what they can and can’t broadcast. Oh wait… 🙄

  2. Cato sings Kozinski’s praises. Seems like Kozinski is (at least professionally) the kind of judge we need more of, not less. FRC may end up with some egg on their face over this one. Kozinski is part of the last bastion of protection of the very rights that allow the FRC to exist. Kind of like a climber cutting his rope because the colors in the weave clash with his Boreals. :oh-no: :hammer: :ROTFL:

  3. @MrParadox – Well, I have to disagree, but then I know you’re not surprised. If we put Godly judges in place, God will reward. And a judge with a porn site is not godly. Not even close. Do you know that he declared a mistrial in the obscenity case he was hearing, and then recused himself?

  4. @SingingMom – My concern is how do we determine who is a “Godly judge”? I’m not talking moral relativism here — not saying how do we say whether it should be a Christian and not a Buddhist. What I mean is what makes a judge Godly? This cases raises one obvious standard: if he has porn on his computer, he’s not a godly judge. But what else do you include? George Bush likes to use profanity and tell crude jokes. Is any judge he appoints tainted as un-godly? Roy Moore in Alabama tried to post the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. Does that make him godly, even though he did it at night as though he were ashamed? Is the quality of the judge’s legal analysis a factor? If Judge Kozinski has been overturned less than Judge Moore, shouldn’t that be important in a system of laws? And if Kozinski had not ruled against the wrong person, they wouldn’t have actively sought to violate his privacy and bring the files in question public. Is a judge who is savvy enough to keep his indiscretions secure “godly” at least publicly? If not, how can you ever be sure of appointing a godly judge without gross violations of privacy or other civil liberties? I don’t necessarily disagree that godly judges would be a good thing. But if all you allow are godly judges and no one else, you’d better be prepared to repeal a lot of laws, because the two remaining sitting judges will be ill-equipped to enforce the plethora of laws currently on the books.One thing I just noticed is the FRC headline: “No Judge of Character”. FRC is acknowledging that the issue is character. That means the obscenity law hinges on character. That means FRC is content with creating felonies based solely on individual characteristics. That opens the door to making the FRC itself illegal, should the prevailing public morals shift. I’d rather see none of the above happen.

  5. @MrParadox – When you actually start practicing law, I have a feeling your middle name is going to be “objection.” :p :giggle:
    I think you are reading waaaay more into this than need be. We can’t always determine who would make the perfect judge (or anything else) before he/she gets the job. But we can certainly get rid of one who grossly goes against a certain standard of decency. A person in such a position might get away with hiding their particular vice from everybody at all times. But when they do show it, or have the stupidity to put it where it could be found by the public, then we should get rid of them. If he wants to view the pornography of his choice in his home, and nobody ever knows, then we cannot do anything about it. But if he puts it on govt. computers, and it’s found, then too bad for him.
    Yes, the president likes to say a few things like that. And I wish he wouldn’t. But his moral character is mostly above board. I don’t mean a person has to be perfect, because we would have no judges or presidents if that were the case. Even King David was a murderer, in a manner of speaking, but God put him where he was. And this judge could be forgiven, and express his regrets for doing such things. But he hasn’t. He has said, in effect, “So what?” He also said he didn’t think he’d get caught. When my kids were growing up, if they did something they knew was wrong, and had the attitude that they could get away with it because they wouldn’t get caught, their punishment was worse than if they had just said they were sorry, and stopped.
    I see no problem with what Judge Moore did. Doesn’t mean he was ashamed. Just means he did it at a time when he was less likely to run into objection. Kinda sly, I think. Besides, he’s probably a cousin of mine. Leave him alone :p

  6. @SingingMom – Robert Duval has a great line in “A Civil Action” where he says something like “I have to object when you phrase questions that way.” 😆 Sometimes I wonder if I come off (here an elsewhere) as disagreeing just to be disagreeable, because I’m really not. I’m just always trying to look two steps ahead and to spot inconsistencies or what I perceive to be flawed arguments. I worry that the methods utilized by FRC and others to advance a political agenda will, when successful, open the door for reciprocal action by parties with less moral morals. We’ve seen the power of government coercion the other way just recently when California tried to outlaw home-schooling. The very same mentality that informs the political philosophy of FRC informed that decision, that is, that government is the necessary and proper means for advancing competing social agendas. More to the point of Judge Kozinski, first, as best I understand the situation, he wasn’t even the one who put the content on his server. I’m not dismissing the fact that as the father and the owner of the computer, he’s “ultimately responsible” but it does lessen the implication that he’s a smut-panderer as he has been portrayed to be.And even more importantly, I’m amazed that FRC has shown no regard for the gross invasion of privacy demonstrated by this case. Imagine if a judge were ruling on a gay marriage case, and a disgruntled former litigant hacked into his computer and discovered a draft of an essay explaining the Biblical foundation for marriage. By the standard advanced int eh Kozinski case, FRC would logically have to support forcing that judge to recuse himself. But you will (rightly) argue that that would be absurd. The judge’s personal views do not influence his decisions; he bases his rulings on the law. If that judge were to rule against gay marriage, he could rightly do so under the principles in current law.Similarly, Judge Kozinski would have ruled in the obscenity case based on the law, not his “private stash” (if you can call it that). What is on his computer may be morally wrong. But if he has broken no laws, and especially since the methods used to “uncover” his indiscretion were questionable, I find it wholly improper to demand that he recuse himself from the case. Regarding Judge Moore, the reason I criticize his choice of timing is because of his own explanation of his actions: “It’s about our right to acknowledge God.” No, sir. You acknowledge God boldly and in the face of opposition. What Judge Moore did was a publicity stunt. He wanted the image of the carvings being removed with no pictures of them being installed. That distorts the impression of what happened and is at least tacitly dishonest. If you see him at a family reunion, please tell him I mean nothing personal in my criticism. 😀

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s