Archive for January, 2010 now up for Sale

January 18, 2010 Leave a comment

Although this blog is primarily an information site with commentary and analysis often difficult to locate elsewhere, I am making one exception to it and that is, effective immediately, my prize domain,, is now up for sale.  It will be posted at a domain auction site if not sold in a reasonable frame of time.  It is my preference, however, for various reasons, to only sell this domain directly to a seriously interested purchaser.

Those who are attempting to visit the Stop the ACLU web site will note that it is currently inactive and that is by intent.  While the site’s most recent format was useful when it was created in 2005 by a conservative technologically sound college student, it soon after was no longer user friendly and we had numerous issues with it.  Outside of my numerous pieces posted there, the site’s design was largely clumsy and difficult to work with, technologically speaking, and one I was not proud of.  Thus, for this and other reasons, the content you may recall being there is now no longer so.

The domain was up for sale a little over a year ago and we had an agreement with a conservative activist Christian pastor (who, though fairly well known in some circles, shall remain anonymous) to purchase it, subject to church board approval.  Unfortunately, though this pastor had a majority approval, he did not have a unanimous one which was the one condition he stipulated.  So after several weeks of negotiations to gain full consent, the agreement fell apart and we took it off the market.  Now we are putting it back on the market again.

In truth, the need to raise some urgent cash partly necessitates the decision to sell this prized domain.  Though it is admittedly worth perhaps a bit less than when we were in negotiations (due to this recession), it still has a fairly good market value.   We are willing to accept less than we were before (dollar amounts will be revealed only to serious negotiators) but we are not willing to give it away.  It is worth something to us for the roughly 5 years we had this site active on the Internet. For a lengthy period, per this site’s webmaster and per Google tracking, Stop the ACLU was second only to the ACLU itself in Google searches for ACLU related activism information.  We held our own with Yahoo and to a lesser extent with MSN and other search engines but it was on Google where this site thrived.  When people wanted to know about Stop the ACLU activism, it wasn’t difficult to locate us. They would frequently visit our blog at  But they also came to the .ORG site as well.

Due to the difficulty we’ve had in reaching our webmaster, we don’t have up to date stats as to how many sites across the Internet had linked to us but we can safely say it was in the thousands.  Within two years or so after the site was first up, which was in August of 2004, we were told by a Canadian tracking group that we had 3000+ links to the Stop the ACLU site.  After that, we lost track (except for our unreachable webmaster) but we think at least 5000 sites is a reliably conservative estimate and probably is much greater.

Effective immediately, we will entertain all serious offers to purchase the Stop the ACLU domain.  Though we obviously will have no control over what is done with the site after it is sold, it is on an honor system that we hope the new owner will continue the mission that we had throughout our days with the site, that being the need to thwart the ACLU’s agenda at every turn and in every lawful and legal way possible, and will thus perpetuate it.  The ACLU’s assault on marriage, human life, crosses, the 10 Commandments and our immigration system, among numerous other issues, needs to be contained and my prayer is the purchaser of this domain will continue carrying the torch.  My primary mission now, which is itself in some ways ACLU related, is to create a national exodus of public school children to private, Christian and home schools.  For this reason, I have purchased the domain of and anticipate having an interactive activist website in place in the coming weeks.  I hope you will bookmark this site, even if it is not yet active.

If the price offered for the domain is acceptable, we will consider including the several thousand e-mail address database for the new buyer’s use.  This is a negotiating tool which you may wish to use in purchasing the Stop the ACLU domain, should you wish to do so.

Though I have attempted to answer any and all questions you may have, if there’s something I haven’t covered, email me at and I will endeavor to reply back as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

Payment for the domain shall be via cashier’s check or money order or PayPal.  Please, again, serious queries only.

Thank you for reading and if you are not interested in purchasing this domain but know someone who may be, please forward this on to them.

God bless you!


Categories: Uncategorized

Is this the best she can do?

January 17, 2010 Leave a comment

I was debating first, whether to even bring this up and second, if I should include it with the other most recent piece which, if you read, is very serious.  But since this is on the lighter side and also since the picture raises an obvious question (at least to me), I figured why not.  Perhaps you, my dear reader, have picked up my thought as well.

I’d like you to take a look at this Jan. 11th Reuters photo of the two same sex couples who are suing the state (but in reality the voters who approved Proposition 8).  Pay close attention to Sandy Stier, the woman at the far right (disregard the remainder of the web page).

Same-sex couples Paul Katami (L), Jeff Zarillo (2nd L), and Kris Perry (2nd R) and Sandy Stier pose for photographs before the start of their trial in San Francisco, California January 11, 2010.

Now let’s view a couple more shots of Sandy and her partner, Kris Perry.

We’re told that Kristin Perry is 45 years of age (Ms. Stier’s partner) and Ms. Stier herself is 47.  Now if I look at Ms. Perry (in all pictures) – her outfit, her shortly cropped hair and her rather masculine appearance – I’d have to say this woman is about 60.  If she had grey hair, you could probably up the age a few more years.

Strictly on looks alone, can anyone tell me Ms. Perry is even remotely attractive?  Would you not agree that she does appear to be about 15 years older than her actual gestational age?

Now let’s turn to Ms. Stier, particularly the first photo.  For 47, this is a very nicely figured, well dressed and fairly attractive woman.  In this writer’s view, she could possibly pass for 40, particularly so if she added just a little bit of lipstick and perhaps coiffed her hair just a tiny bit more.  Would you not concur?

I am aware that in lesbian relationships, sometimes you have the butch type, ala Ms. Perry, as one of the partners.  You see them in the Rosie O’Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres relationships and others.  But while I would not consider them very good looking, even they on external appearance alone would easily beat Ms. Perry in a contest.

I am also keenly aware that people do not necessarily marry based on looks, though men are usually more “guilty” of the googly eye than the woman.  I know people love others for more than just an outward appearance.  And sometimes it’s very difficult for an “ugly duckling” to find someone, regardless of that person’s gender.  That is a heartbreaking experience.

As a Christian, I know that true beauty comes from the internal and often when that inner beauty shines, the external will as well.  And when that doesn’t appear to work, things like makeovers, hairdos, change of makeup use and wardrobe revisions can sometimes have a positive effect on altering one’s external negative appearance.

But can someone honestly tell me what would drive Sandy Stier to leave a 12 year relationship with a man, then “discover” she’s a lesbian and go with a woman who, by most any definition, has little to go on for visual appearance and even has a grandmother-like image? While women tend less to go on looks in a dating relationship as opposed to men, they usually like to at least find a tiny something in their partner that is attractive.  I just can’t see anything in Ms. Perry.  Perhaps Ms. Stier could enlighten me.

Hey, even the two men who appear in the top photo with these ladies are externally good looking dudes, even if they got their wires crossed.

I’m sorry but I just can’t see anything in Ms. Perry that would drive any man or woman to want to be with her.  Does anyone disagree with me here?  If so, what beauty, external or internal, does this woman, who appears to be closer to 60, have?  Please help me if I’m missing something but with all due respect, I think Ms. Stier has had her wires shorted.  I find her quite attractive as someone who is only two years her senior.  What man in her 30s, 40s and 50s would not also find Sandy quite desirable? She can do better.  She should.

More importantly, Sandy and her partner need to disband their relationship, get counseling regarding their unnatural lifestyle so they can live a genuinely normal life, and cease their efforts to overturn the voter sentiment from Proposition 8.

I can’t imagine what these two women do in the bedroom together and perhaps I shouldn’t, both in terms of adhering to my Christian principles and thinking of Ms. Perry’s external appearance.

But in the end, these ladies, like all men and women, need the Lord in their lives and to disband a relationship that has no last fulfillment or pleasure.

I’m prepared to take some heat from what I just shared but it comes with the territory.  So let’s hear what you have to say on this.

P.S.  I feel sorry for Ted Olson, who is pictured in the second photo with the two lesbians and sold out conservatives and Christians by his support for this faux form of marriage and who, by his defense of these two same sex couples, is thumbing his nose at the voters who approved Proposition 8 in 2008.  I tend to think his late saintly wife Barbara, who died during 9/11, would be turning over in her grave.

Categories: Uncategorized

Is America Becoming Desensitized to Immorality

January 16, 2010 Leave a comment

The following are two recent examples whereby society is becoming desensitized to what traditionally has been immoral and even evil.  The first pertainins to something I have seen this week and personally experienced.  The second pertains to a disturbing matter largely and shockingly viewed as heartwarming.

On my way yesterday to the town hall meeting mentioned in the previous post (about a 15 minute drive), I was stopped at a traffic light and sat briefly behind a pickup truck with a bumper sticker that read “I Love P0rn“.

Actually , “Love” was not in the sentence but a red heart was substituted for the word.

Now it seems less common these days to see any bumper stickers on cars, let alone what I saw.  It’s almost like a fad.  And given the region I live in, I was a bit surprised that someone would embrace such a brazen statement.  It is not what I would term as an extremely religious community but there are a lot of churches in Northwest Indiana with generally embraced traditional values and Hoosier hospitality displayed much of wherever one goes.   Thus I was caught off-guard by this sticker and its brief but blunt claim of endearment.

I fully realize the existence of p0rnography in society, stemming from the likes of Playboy, Penthouse & Hustler and that the advent of the Internet has greatly accelerated its promotion.  I understand the grip it has on many folks, young and old, male and female, professional and blue collar.  P0rn knows no discrimination.  Anyone can be caught in its clutches if they are not careful.  I know what I’m speaking about.  I was one of them.

But to say thru an advertisement on one’s one vehicle that they proudly embrace p0rn; that truly frightens me.  I believe most folks are not proud of their actions and want to do their deeds privately without others knowing.  Yes, there are plenty of forums one can check out this stuff – reading the above sordid magazines (whose subscriptions are waning), visiting adult book stores and peep shows and of course, the Internet where it’s not tough to see a lot of it for free.

But though people engage in p0rn activity as a result of the presence of its images in a vast variety of forms, how many folks want to publicly declare their affinity and affection for it?  I daresay not many.

Or might I be wrong?  The presence of one bumper sticker like this makes me rethink my personal belief.  After all, it is highly likely that this bumper sticker, simple as its appearance shown, came from either a p0rn shop or some other facility that sells sleazy and risque items.

As I said earlier, I was once in the clenches of porn.  It started in my teen years.  A friend I knew at the time had Playboy magazines under the bed in his room.  Though that didn’t so much start my curiosity, my late father was perhaps the individual who did.  He was a part time professional photographer, that is when he was not teaching (he was a science teacher in a Chicago public school) or on his booze binge (he was an alcoholic and it eventually results in his suicide at 53 back in the summer of 1981).  Though he did not film anything pertaining to p0rn or nudity, he did possess a few photography magazines containing pictures of nude individuals as well as a couple reels of old projector film (the kind you used to see in the 60s and 70s in school classrooms) with men and women in sexual poses and acts, though with the private parts generally obscured.  Unfortunately, I did see those reels, though I am honest when I say I cannot recall any specifics from them.

But the whole process got me started.

Now I never in my whole life ever spend one penny to buy any such magazine or film clips.  Although I got my kicks (read: arousal) from seeing this stuff, I could never in good conscience buy any of it.  I instinctively knew it was wrong.  But while I was not by any means possessed or consumed by porn images at the time (the 70s and 80s), my curious nature would have me keep my mind open if some image of such appeared on the street or in a trash can.

By the grace of God, I never solidified an addiction back then.  But the worst was soon to come.

From early on in my childhood, one of the things I loved doing was playing Scrabble with my family.  I would take on my parents, who were teachers and supposedly experts in the game, and soundly thrash them.  In the late 80s I joined a Scrabble club in Chicago and in the early 90s I started playing in tournaments in the Chicago area and across the Midwest.  Traveling to play in these tourneys necessitated staying overnight in hotels and motels.

Unfortunately, I came across one hotel in the late 90s that had soft p0rn available for viewing.  As before, I would never pay for such but in this hotel in suburban Detroit, the free cable TV viewing included blunt public sex and nudity from HBO and Sex in the City.  It had an almost stranglehold-like grip on me as I began viewing it on one Saturday evening after coming back from a series of Saturday morning and afternoon games.  Being consumed with it became a distraction for Sunday’s games as I meditated on this trash perhaps more so than my play.  Fortunately, however, there were no other occasions quite like this one.  But it did have an effect on me like never previously.

Fast forward to the summer of 2001 when I got online for the first time in my life.  I did not think of the Internet as a porn source right away but about a year later, I had the ambition to try and learn how to put together a website for a political passion I had. With the help of a webmaster, I was able to get my site together and set up my own website e-mail accounts.

However, those tasks  soon turned to be a spigot that was hard to shut off.

I quickly learned what SPAM was all about and how SPAMMERS would harvest my e-mail address off the net as they did.  It was one thing getting such garbage in my mailboxes.  However, some of the SPAM involved the appearance of sexually explicit images upon simply opening to click what appeared to be annoying, though seemingly innocent messages.  The nude images (and yes, fully nude on some occasions) resurrected a dormant view of porn that had largely been a non-factor in recent years.  I never dreamed nudity could simply appear in an e-mail by simply clicking to read what I thought, per the subject line, was something entirely opposite.

But it did.  And thus for a period of time from late 2002 to 2004, I suffered an addiction to porn, though by the grace of God, it was not continual day in and day out.  However, when the urge hit, I would periodically stay up for hours and occasionally all night to view images that I had never previously seen.  When images of nudity and traditional sexual acts eventually became boring, I sought to view more extreme images.  Orgies became a common thing for me to see, though thankfully and by the grace of God, hard core porn acts outside of natural sexual intercourse never had a choke hold on me and neither did images of teen and preteen nudity, something I managed to stay away from.  But what I did view took its toll on me and my brain.  And let me tell you, it hard wires you.  Other than the precious grace of God, it can be extremely difficult to be deprogrammed from stark images of p0rnography.  I am witness to that effect.

There is more I could say about my experience with p0rn except I will say that I believe I have it safely under control and that it does not control me and hasn’t for roughly the last 5 1/2 years.  It is an addiction no one should have.  I cringed when I saw that particular bumper sticker yesterday.  That person likely needs serious help and that this person may not see their need of it.  Thus if you know someone who is an addict (and yes, women can be caught in its cross hairs as well), GET HELP NOW.  There are websites and groups that deal with this addiction and there is one connected to Focus on the Family that I strongly recommend.  I don’t have the link offhand but it can be located at the FOTF website and it should be fairly visible for those searching for it.

P0rn desensitizes one from right from wrong and for some held in its bondage, it can result (and does) in sexual crimes committed on others, young and old.  The desensitization of it needs to be addressed without delay.

For those who aren’t desensitized to the point of criminal activity, p0rn causes men to view women as objects instead of creations of God to love.  Yes, this has been frequently stated but I can tell you first hand it “works”. Although yours truly has been thus far largely free from the long term effects of viewing continual porn, I do admit that sometimes I have difficulty in looking at a lady straight in the face and not an object.  I periodically find myself gazing, though I wouldn’t go so far as calling it gawking, at a woman’s chest build and posterior, regardless of her age and looks.  It is tough to admit but it is true.  I definitely believe it stems from all the images of women that I have seen in all the various stages of dress and undress.

If you see yourself in what I have said, please get help and also let me know that you need it.  I can be there for you.

And though the following may not seem related to the above, it definitely has its connections.  Desensitization of sin is devastating to communities, leads to crime and it leads to what I am about to share.  It may anger some people and perhaps even outrage, some to the point of blasting me and my comments, both from the right and the left.  But I don’t care.  This is important.

In California right now, there is a potential landmark case that may eventually force states to adopt same sex marriage in their states, despite the fact that no state in which the voters have had a say so (31 of them currently) have approved of such social engineering.  The current case involves one lesbian and one male homosexual couple challenging Proposition 8 which was approved by 52% of Californians in November 2008.  More details here.

However, this aspect of the California suit and the forum responses to this particular case in Utah should disturb any rational thinking individual who believes a child belongs with one man and one woman.

One would think that in religiously conservative Utah with the largest contingent of Mormons of any other state that the opposition to this woman’s decision to be a surrogate to two homosexual men would be met with at least mixed reactions.  But from the readers’ comments and even the conservative lawmakers this self-identified lesbian lawmaker serves with, there is minimal concern for the child’s long term welfare, disregarding the long standing tradition, Christian and otherwise, that children needs both a father and mother and that each have their own unique roles in raising children.

The story identifies Christine Johnson, a Salt Lake City lawmaker, as being a surrogate mother for two Utah homosexual men who were “married” in California before the voters there rescinded court ordered same sex marriage by approving Proposition 8.  She is said to be 5 months pregnant via artificial insemination of one of the men’s sperm.  The readers of this story and the various individuals in it are led to believe this woman is doing a humane service for these two men by carrying a child they are claiming as theirs.

Sadly, however, Ms. Johnson is being used for a purpose nature’s God did not design.  It would be somewhat understandable if she was doing this for a married couple who could not have children on their own.  There are arguments that can be made for and against artificial impregnation in general for a traditional opposite sex couple, married or not, though married by far would be by far the less controversial for patently obvious reasons.

But such is not the case here.  We’re talking two men who, for whatever reason, refuse to have children nature’s and God’s way, that being thru direct impregnation of the opposite sex in the bond of marriage. And unfortunately, we’re also talking about a woman, whose physical and sexual desires, like those of the men, are wired against nature.  And the public is being led to believe that a compassionate woman is fulfilling the desires of these men who are assumed to be born homosexual and cannot change course.

Let’s quickly state that yes, even homosexual men and women have the capacity to love a child.  I do not know the hearts and intents of Ms. Johnson and these two misguided males.  Only God does.  But like anything else in life, there are requirements to achieve certain objectives.  In this vein, we’re talking about having children.  And they are simple.  Each man can find an unmarried woman 18 or older who is not an immediate relative of each other’s families and who will agree to be their spouses.  One of those women can be Ms. Johnson, whom I will admit, according to the picture in the article, has a certain degree of external beauty about her.

Not rocket science, huh?

And contrary to perhaps popular thinking, there is no universal “right” to have a child outside the traditional way of doing so.  Utah’s adoption law is fitting and the state should be commended for standing firm for it, especially when leftist groups like the ACLU seek to annul it thru the court system.

If this writer had access to either of these two men, he would ask them this question: what’s keeping you both from finding a single woman of age to be your life partners and bearing your own blood children?  This question should be asked of men and women who embrace the homosexual lifestyle.

I daresay I might get an answer that “we were born this way“, which is easily rebuttable.  Beyond that, any other answer would be difficult to even so much as utter.  There is no good reason other than selfishness and an unwillingness to rechart their course in life.  True, circumstances and events in the lives of homosexual men and women may have caused them to leave the traditional bond of love and heterosexual matrimony.  Such folks need love, compassion, understanding and counseling.  But they need not be affirmed in a lifestyle that has been, since the dawn of time, viewed as immoral and one which facts show the shortening of lives and creation of great confusion, pain and sorrow.

There is no redeeming value in a homosexual relationship – none – zip, zilch, zero, nada.  It cannot be honestly articulated and demonstrated.  It is born of selfishness, no matter how hard one may try explaining it away.  It is sin, no matter how hard someone denies it.  But it is like most any other, easily forgiveable, though some folks have a tougher time leaving it than others.

Ms. Johnson and these two men should know that and be told they don’t have to be in the chains of bondage this lifestyle causes.  Persons are to be affirmed, not potentially lethal lifestyles leading to HIV, AIDS and more.  There are people who have left this life of misery to become productive in so many other ways. Groups like Exodus International and former homosexuals like Stephen Bennett are available to assist.  They should be sought.

I realize I offered some unsolicited advice but I don’t apologize for it.

However, let’s go back to this story and specifically to the reactions expressed in the forum.  What is so shocking is virtually one-sided support given to Ms. Johnson and these two men.  The posters appear to be clueless on the homosexual lifestyle and think there is no issue here when there is indeed something very wrong.  It is simply not two men or two women throwing an occasional kiss at each other and living together.  It is far more than that.  And in order to convince those on both sides of the political aisle that there are serious issues here and that what I have stated thus far is the gospel truth (and hopefully set people free in the process), I am putting my personal reputation and integrity on the line and do something I believe no one thus far has done.  Some may call into question my Christianity for what I suggest.  I am willing to have that exposed in order for the truth to come out.
But before I continue, I am issuing this disclaimer so that you will know that you have been forewarned and will assume all risks of your actions, should you go ahead with what follows.

Here goes.  If you are not up to doing this, don’t do so.  There is a risk in doing so.  But what I want you to now do is take these steps:

  • If there are any kids, including teens, by your computer, do whatever you must to escort them away from the monitor or come back another time.  If you are a child or a teen, please stop here as I do not want you to proceed.  A hopefully mature adult will later explain why after he or she reads thru the rest of this article.
  • The optimum person reading this and proceeding will be one with solid moral convictions of right and wrong.  However, skeptics of my views should also consider proceeding, though they should have some basis of right and wrong they adhere to.
  • I strongly recommend, due to the nature of the upcoming content, that you have another mature and trusted adult on hand prior to proceeding.  There is a measure of accountability at stake here so regardless of your politics and leanings, secure an appropriate individual to be with you.  It is unwise and risky to do it all alone.

Have you done the above?  If you have, proceed cautiously by reading all the following steps before actually doing any of them.  It is very important in order to have minimum negative impact.

Here we go.

  1. Since most computers have a Google toolbar in some fashion, I ask you to open a window to go to it and click to go to Google images.  If you do not have one installed, simply go to and click the images link at the top left of the page.
  2. In the bar – and here is where the rubber meets the road – type “gay sex” and then “lesbian sex“.  If you have the strict or moderate safe setting in place, it will appear – most Google installations come that way and can only be changed manually.  If so, click to turn the same search button to “off” – but only TEMPORARILY.  Finally, click to view the images. Be forewarned – these images speak for themselves.
  3. Keep the “gay sex” and “lesbian sex” pages on for no more than 30 seconds each and then close the pages.  If you have them on longer, have your partner in the room close the web pages for you.  They are ADDICTING!  What is being displayed is outright p0rnography.
  4. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES whatsoever should you go beyond the first Google page or worse, click any of the images to go to those websites.  If you do so, you face a potential p0rn addiction that may be extremely difficult to undo.  Trust me, I know what I’m talking about. It’s strictly by the grace of God I no longer have this addiction.

    Additionally, should you visit any of those sites, unless you have a pop-up blocker in place, it will be difficult to leave some of those pages as these sites will repeat their pages or display similar ones from other sites to keep you in their grasp.  Your Internet Protocol Number (IPN) may also be taken by the sites’ webmasters and owners and your computer may well be infected with spyware and malware.  Almost all p0rn sites have them in place.  Google pages do not have that but as stated, you don’t want to go beyond the first page for obvious reasons.  If you need just one reason not to do so, just note the approximate 13 million similar pages under “gay sex” or 6 million pages under “lesbian sex“.   This is how much this stuff exists out across the Internet world.

  5. Close all web pages, including any innocuous ones you have open, then run the “delete temporary files” in your computer and delete all those pages.  And to be on the safe side, run your anti-virus, anti-spyware computer program.  Though Google pages are not deemed (to the best of this writer’s knowledge) to have these issues, it’s best to be on the safe side and clean everything out.
  6. And hopefully you have followed the first instruction by not clicking any image under Google images.  I stress that so that any possible addiction you could incur by viewing those Google images will be minimal, if at all, and quickly eliminated from your mindsets.

I am prepared for any and all criticism that will come my way and I assure you there will be plenty of it, both from the Christian right and the liberal left, albeit for likely different reasons.  The thought that I might have caused a p0rn addiction is one that I take very seriously and truly pray didn’t occur.

But I know no other way to get the Christian right, the nominal right and hard and soft  left to see that their support of the adoption of this would be child is fraught with dangers.  The thought of seeing what same sex couples do in private (or God forbid, public) should cause us to shudder and ask ourselves why we would even think of allowing two men or two women to adopt or in some other way be allowed to raise children.

Folks, what you saw on Google images is the real deal for these misguided practitioners.  They are identified as homosexuals and lesbians because they desire and have sexual relations with members of their own gender.  That is the definition of those words.  Nature and nature’s God never intended men and women to live this way.  And while some of these individuals would be alarmed if they saw or knew of children being exposed, directly or indirectly, to their actions, others have no compunction about their behavior.  Thus children should never be allowed to adopt or have children in such settings.

Ironically, we were told this week via a liberal college psychologist in the Proposition 8 trial that homosexuals were no more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals and that they were just as fitting to be parents.  Indeed he was reported as having stated that “No research shows that kids need to be protected from gays or lesbians”.

Apparently Michael Lamb, the aforementioned psychologist, conveniently omitted a very significant bit of information from our neighbor to the north. He failed to cite how a prominent homosexual group sought legislation to reduce that nation’s age of consensual anal sex from 18 to 16 while the government sought to raise the age of traditional vaginal sex from 14 to 16. He also ignored the devastating statistics cited in the above link of what occurs from Canadians engaging in unnatural homosexual behavior.

And lest Dr. Lamb couldn’t locate such statistics from across the fruited plain, I shall be happy to oblige him and won’t have to use someone he would consider to be a radical right wing psychologist.   However, we can use the statistics cited on his page from some fairly well known mainstream sources many of which that, at the time of citing, weren’t sold out politically.

And maybe Dr. Lamb could benefit from viewing a 1996 Centers for Disease Control report that was released in 2005.

Heck, maybe Rep. Johnson, her daughter, the two men awaiting the birth of this child, the posters of comments in the Deseret News article and Deseret’s editors (who removed all comments of opposition, including that of this writer) could benefit from reading the links in the last couple paragraphs.

And for all those reading this piece who embrace the homosexual lifestyle, please listen up and face the facts.

You have been sold a bill of goods for the lifestyle you are living.  There is no redeeming value in its practices – zip, zilch, zero, nada.  If anything, your behaviors may lead you to AIDS and other rare sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), emotional pain and sorrow, and a host of other physical and mental ailments.  It is the responsibility of Christians and others who care about your well being to discourage you from continuing in these paths and assist you in every way possible towards leaving this harmful way of life.  We care about your total welfare.

Should you, however, wish to continue in your lifestyle in the face of the immense pain that comes with it, we will respect and honor your decisions.   We acknowledge your liberties under the 1st & 4th Amendments and if requested, will stand with you to defend them, even if the behaviors and actions you espouse are not in good order nor in line with traditional Christian values. You are accorded the same freedoms as all other Americans in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights.

However, under no circumstances can we support any form of adoption or custody of children under your care.  We must protect our children and do all we can to ensure their optimal upbringing, that being in the custody and care of one man and one woman, preferably in the bonds of holy matrimony. As such, we will diligently oppose and stand against any policy or decision that would put America’s children in the care and custody of a homosexual relationship.

It is terribly distressing that the posters to this forum and its editors are so blinded to think that putting the custody of children in the hands of men and women engaging in unnatural sexual behaviors is kind, sweet and loving, given that a female lawmaker (and lesbian) is being a surrogate for the child. Despite the woman’s concession to give up the child upon birth and her unnatural lifestyle, I believe Rep. Johnson does have some bond (or will) for the baby as she approaches delivery.   She may be prepared to give him or her up but I think her natural bond towards children will make it tougher to surrender him or her at birth.

Although my comments are long-winded, particularly in this second item, I believe we need to wake up, cherish and defend our traditional morals by relegating p0rn to the ash heap of history and standing firm against the aggressive implementation of the homosexual lifestyle and adoptions corresponding to these behaviors.  Failure to do so will likely further accelerate the corruption of American society.

I deeply apologize for the recommendations to visit the p0rn pages under Google images as laid out earlier.  It is my hope that no one will view these pages as titillating and exciting.  However, if this is what it takes to end the proliferation of p0rn in society and the abuse of children resulting from the placement of children with homosexuals, I feel it is my obligation to do so.

For those who would tell me to not judge this lawmaker and these men and to live and let live, I would respond by reminding them the penalties Jesus pronounced in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18 for those who would abuse children.

And for those who would condemn me for believing homosexual adoption is child abuse, I have no apologies for it and have lots of facts and history to back it up.

May God remove our desensitization and awaken us to the destructive nature of p0rn and the homo agenda before it’s too late.

Categories: Uncategorized

My Congressman’s Town Hall Meeting

January 15, 2010 Leave a comment

Readers, I apologize for not having any material up since Dec. 20th.  I trust everyone had a blessed Christmas season and regret I did not post my well wishes at the time.  But I have been down with a foot injury which, due to the somewhat unique nature of it, makes it rather difficult for me to sit at the computer for any significant length of time.  I have no idea how I contracted it and unfortunately, I have no means to pay a doctor for treatment. However, I have taken pain medication to keep it from getting worse, along with ice treatments, foot elevation and wraparound splints.  Your prayers would be truly appreciated for me at this time.

But though I have been silent for the last 3 1/2 weeks and limiting in reading my e-mails, I have endeavored to try to keep up as to what’s occurring on the political scene, especially with reference to Obamacare.  As you may know, though I did not post any material on it, the Senate passed its version strictly along party lines on Christmas Eve (what a great gift for America, huh?) and now it’s in conference committee, awaiting the usurper’s eventual signature.  Make no mistake, once signed into law, various groups and a number of states are prepared to challenge the legality of it.  And true liberty loving heroes in Washington, like Sen. Jim DeMint of S. Carolina, are taking unprecedented measures and using rarely used parliamentary and other moves to keep this atrocious job and country killer from ever becoming law.

However, I wish to leave that issue for the moment and share with you some observations and points from my visit yesterday to one of the many town hall meetings conducted this week by my Democrat Congressman, Pete Visclosky, representative for the 1st District of Indiana which covers much of Northwest Indiana.

As you will note on his web page, the Congressman has conducted quite a few meetings since Jan. 9th, 24 in total.  However, it should be quickly added that his meetings in January are all that he conducts in an entire year.  An aide of his told me this past summer when Congress was home for the month of August to “face the music” about Obamacare that Rep. Visclosky only holds them in January.  That was strictly not the case as he did hold an unannounced meeting in August that erupted in political pandemonium. But generally speaking, this was true.  He didn’t want to hear what the voters had to say during the August recess, unlike other Congressmen, particularly Democrats, who were largely read the riot act from their constituents.

And the Congressman heard it even more so this week as you will note here and here; also see this great picture here – this woman also stood outside the town hall meeting I attended in Valparaiso, which I will detail momentarily.

If you would like to see a few of the You Tube videos of the Congressman’s meetings, I have the three that are currently posted at You Tube linked at the end of this post.  These appear to be mild mannered contrasted to the above, though there are elements of intense passion to be observed.

Now as for the forum I attended yesterday, like virtually all of them, it was packed with standing room only and with individually spilled outside the conference room.  It goes without saying, and for which several constituents mumbled, that these meetings could have been held in larger facilities, such as a high school or college auditorium or gym.  For the forum I was at, a large room could have been rented at Valparaiso University, located just minutes from Valparaiso (also called Valpo by some) City Hall.  At the very least, such lack of planning could be considered poor oversight.  At worst, such could be viewed as possible indifference to the public for which this Congressman serves.  There can be little argument as to any claim that Rep. Visclosky might make that he had no idea the attendance at these meetings would be sizable.   He had to have known the opposition to Obamacare and his vote in support of it was significant.  No other issue is consuming the bulk of the time at these meeting as government takeover of the private health care system.

As to the meeting I went to, unfortunately I was one of those who could not get a seat inside the conference room or stand up along the walls.  I was about 10-12 feet outside the nearest door.  And due to my foot condition, I could not stay on my feet for any serious length of time, thus I would take a break every few minutes to sit on the carpeted floor outside a door that was not used for entering and exiting.  Eventually a Congressional aide saw me and was kind enought to lead me to a bench between two of the other doors as some outside folks gradually left, either for lack of visibility or other reasons.  I daresay this aide likely did not originally know I was not a fan of her employer.

The meeting began a couple minutes after the top of the noon hour with the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance (for which Barack Obama despises).  Then the Congressman began discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cap and trade, and of course, the health care abomination, along with a few other issues.  He did so until about 12:30 PM when he began to answer questions submitted to him in writing.  He continued doing so until about 1:25 PM when the conference was adjourned.

A couple points about Rep. Visclosky taking roughly 25 minutes to talk of his own accord.  In my opinion, this was highly inappropriate.  This was the people’s meeting, not his.  It may have been fitting to speak briefly for about 5 minutes at most and then let the audience have the rest of the discussion. But in this writer’s view, it was not proper to take up a third of the gathering and offer his rambling thoughts.

The reason I say this comes from experience.  Prior to moving to Indiana, I had attended town hall meetings in Illinois by the former late U.S. Senator Paul Simon, retired Congressman Bill Lipinski of the 3rd Congressional District in the state and later his son, Dan Lipinski, who is the current representative in that district.  I clearly remembered Simon and Bill Lipinski (affectionately called Bungalow Bill for being in a Chicago district with a preponderance of old style bungalow homes) going straight to the constituents for discussion and Dan Lipinski offering brief opening comments before letting the public control the themes.  This was clearly not the case here in the Valpo meeting.

Also, during the Valpo meeting, as with the others in the You Tube videos linked above, the environment was very controlled by having questions submitted in writing to the Congressman as opposed to letting constituents speak into a microphone and the Congressman responding impromptu.  Someone who has command of their convictions and isn’t ashamed of their votes or positions isn’t going to ask that questions be written beforehand.  This kind of malarkey gives me the itch to run for this Congressman’s seat.  I’m not afraid of what I stand for and passionately articulate it and if I don’t know the answer to something submitted to me spontaneously, I’ll get that answer.

The questions submitted here were similar to those at the aforementioned You Tube video links.  A couple exceptions were that Rep. Visclosky proudly touted his vote against cap and trade, for which he got a fairly good round of applause, and his vote against the 2008 bank bailout while President Bush was still in office.  However, the cap and trade vote was obscured by the fact that he voted for Obamacare, which will, like cap and trade, extensively kill jobs across America.  And the bank bailout in the 110th Congress is greatly obscured by Visclosky’s votes for the so-called stimulus bills and TARP legislation.  Those votes he conveniently ignored.

Being outside the conference room made it a bit difficult to hear what was going on inside; even more so when the Congressman’s comments were met with loud boos and jeers and interruptions, which occurred sporadically and with modest amounts of anger, though not as fiery as in other meetings.  But it didn’t help that there was no microphone for Mr. Visclosky to speak into. The lack of a mike and accommodations for the large crowds.

While out in the hallway, I did strike up a conversation with a somewhat disabled patriot who, like me, agreed totally about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare.  He shared with me a piece of paper where he wrote down four issues of concern that he wanted to ask the Congressman. Besides the government takeover of health care, one of his remaining concerns was whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be sitting in the position he currently sits.  Given that there was the meeting inside and the need to keep external noise to a bare minimum, I could not but very briefly concur and discuss with him my total agreement with him and wish that other concerned citizens would pick it up as well.

This patriot had another congressional aide come up to him and help him transfer his comments to a small form note to submit to the Congressman.  The aide then took the note and I believe brought it up to Mr. Visclosky along with the other questions for submission.  Due to the noise issues and lack of a mike, it was not clear whether this patriot’s specific question on Obamacare was heard, even though other questions on Obamacare were submitted and responded to.  However, it appeared quite clear that if it was, the portion of Obama’s questionable U.S. citizenship was ignored.

The question I would have loved to have seen submitted is one that would almost certainly bring closure to the Congressman’s quarter of a century service.  And that is the fact that, according to the Federal Election Commission’s website, Rep. Visclosky’s campaign contributions from within the state amounted to just 4%, meaning outside interests control his war chest and thus secure  his reelections.  Regardless of how people feel about their Congressman, liberal, conservative or something else, anyone whose pocketbooks are lined up with out of state money should be sent to the unemployment line at the close of their election term.  That means Rep. Visclosky as well as Sen. Evan Bayh, who, like the Congressman, is up for reelection this fall and only gets 14% of his funds instate.

In summary, if your Congressman or senator acts like Rep. Visclosky did in these You Tube videos and as I described, regardless of political party (though such will more likely occur under the Democrats) it’s time to send them packing and end their taxpayer paid salaries.

And as promised near the beginning, here are the three You Tube videos from Rep. Visclosky’s town hall meetings – one in the city of Schererville (broken down into two segments) and the other in the city of Highland.

Categories: Uncategorized