I'm glad my wife and I aren't the only ones who noticed the irresponsibility of the "Life takes..." Visa credit card ads.

Out of all of the images/scenarios they could use for "Life Takes Spontaneity," they use a WEDDING.  Yes, a bunch of professional people sat around in a series of meetings and decided it was a good idea to promote spontaneity in lifelong decisions with significant financial, social, physical, and spiritual consequences. Way to go, Visa!

We have other credit card options, and my wife and I are choosing to avoid Visa.

I can see how spontaneous weddings could be good for Visa... the people getting married running up credit card debt that will take them years to pay off, the wedding presents being bought using Visa... the bride and groom running up more credit card debt when they go through a divorce... I can see why this benefits Visa.

However, it is a blatant attack on one of the most important institutions in human history, and I'm so very tired of attacks on marriage in the media.  If you don't want to take your marriages seriously, so be it, but some of us do, and we don't need to support those who devalue something so precious to us.  Remember... the next time the people of Hollywood or Madison Avenue tell you that you are a bigot for thinking marriage is something requiring both sexes, keep in mind that these are the people who promote these kinds of messages about marriage and quite publicly lead lives of rushing to divorce, infidelity, and fornication, making it clear that they do not take marriage seriously.

We get along just fine without Visa, thank you.

I'm shocked...shocked! That the socialists in my state would stoop to fraud in trying to advance their ballot proposition.

>>Anyone looking for information on Proposition 87, a proposed tax on oil produced in California, and going to the "No on 87" website was instead redirected to "Yes on 87."<<

Yeah, that's just what California needs... even MORE taxes on what ends up going into our gas tanks and less oil production.

How about another tax on Hollywood?  Aren't the entertainment companies making "obscene" profits?  Or maybe we should stop targeting industries and individual companies to be punished for their success.  Don't like the oil companies?  DON'T USE THEIR PRODUCTS!

I'm a registered Republican.  I've given money in the past.  However, I am only going to continue to give if I like what I see in the party.

Here are just a few things I'm looking for:

1. Real border security.  We need real border security for several reasons: a) to prevent terrorists from sneaking into the country; b) to prevent contraband from being brought into this country; c) to prevent diseases from coming into this country; and d) to stop the invasion of our country, and yes, it is an invasion, even if the invaders have a variety of different reasons for coming here.  These are REAL problems.  Offering citizenship to people who started off here by breaking the law is NOT going to encourage me to donate.

2. Appointing/confirming judges who believe they are there to interpret and apply the law, not make the law, and if the Democrats try some tactic to prevent this, you must call them out on it... loudly.  This should help with the issue of protecting the right to life.

3. Hardball with terrorists, and I don't care if the whiners think that is mean.  Enough said.

4. Fiscal restraint.  You will NEVER spend your way to swaying all of those Democrats who live off of the government teat, so stop trying and return to a more Constitutional form of government.  Stop creating/increasing spending for programs that aren't supposed to be the government's role to begin with, or aren't supposed to be the government's role at that level.

5. Real protection for marriage against counterfeiting.  Yes, this is important.  Marriage has already been attacked in so many ways... let's not allow a tiny minority of activists to impose a fundamental societal change on the rest of us.  I will not settle for lip service on this issue.

If I don't see real, effective progress on these issues, I'm not going to donate, no matter how many times you call, no matter how much mail you send me.

There was a very nice comment written in response to my last post.  I'd like to write about some of the points raised.

>>Islamo-fascism is the biggest threat facing Western Civilization since 1939, when Hitler sent his panzers across the Polish border.<<
 
I'm glad that we agree on that.

>>I still intend to keep lobbying for the rights of GLBT people to live with the partner of their choice, receive the same employment and Federal benefits as anyone else and be able to live without fear of harrasement or violence.<<

That is your right as a human being - to speak out for what you believe, and to try to persuade others to agree with you. 

>>I keep wondering why "Christians" oppose hate-crimes status for the beatings, torture and murder of Gay, Lesbian and transgendered people, but I digress...<<

There's a small percentage of people who oppose anything that the GLBT activists speak out for simply because they don't like anything different from themselves.  I am not one of those people.

However, ultimately, I think employers (except government agencies) should be able to hire and fire anyone for any reason and should be able to offer compensation as they see fit.  If an employer wants to offer single-sex couples benefits, then fine.  If an employer doesn't want to do that, and you don't like it, find an employer who will treat you the way you want to be treated, even if that employer is yourself.  If an employer only wants to hire vegans, that should be the employer's choice.

Those who physically harm people or property should be prosecuted for their harm (murder, assualt, battery, vandalism, etc.) and NOT for their thoughts.  It should matter not to the law whether someone beats a gay person because they hate gays or because it is domestic abuse - either way, the perp should be prosecuted.  Tammy Bruce, who is openly gay, has written extensively on this and expresses my thinking very clearly.  I believe it was in her book The New Thought Police.  Like me, Bruce also draws a distinction between people attracted to people of the same sex and people who dress innapropriately or have their reproductive organs mangled in surgery and take hormones in an effort to appear to be the other sex.

The bottom line is that a freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the rights to life and property belong to both the straight and the gay.  That's a Western value that the Islamofascist terrorists seek to destroy, and although I may have little in common with say, a Wiccan vegan gay Democrat, we should both work together against the terrorists who seek to take the debates out of our hands.  So, although I may disagree with you on the meaning of something like marriage, I will stand by you against those who would seek to kill you - whether they are Western or Islamofascist.

Is anything more important that defeating terrorists?  I doubt that we will prevent all terrorist actions this side of the Second Coming, but what can possibly be a higher priority than countering terrorist actions, degrading the organizational effectiveness of terrorist groups, and thwarting terrorist plots?  To this end, we must have effective intelligence gathering, military capabilities, and popular resolve to be defiant against such attacks instead of cowering in surrender.

The leftist and the right-winger should be able to agree on this, or none of their other topics of debate matter.  How much taxpayer money we should be spending and on what; where to draw the line on what we do with "extra" embryos; what constitutes "marriage"; if we can and should do anything about global warming; changing minimum wage laws; organizing labor; - none of this... NONE OF IT matters if our society is destroyed by terrorists.

Really now... you think it is horrible that your child's religious expression is stifled in public schools?  How would you like it if they were forced to bow to Mecca five times a day?  You think you have it rough in this country because you are gay?  It's nothing compared to what the Islamofacists will do to you.  Drilling in ANWAR frighten you?  These people drill EVERYWHERE, and if you get in their way with your protests, you're going to get a lot worse than a knock on the noggin with a police officer's flashlight.

Thankfully, some Democrats recognize this.  It's too bad the fringe, cynical, moral relativist, ultrapartisan, opportunistic element is leading that party down a destructive path.

 Direct TV Triples Profit

Obscene!  I'm sure Congress will be holding hearings into a possible "windfall profits" tax on the satellite television industry.

Or, maybe not.

 

Haven't blogged in days, and I apologize to my reader.  Sorry about that.

So now Bush is being characterized as anti-science because of his veto of the Let's Spend Taxpayer Money to Kill Human Beings When They Are Embryos Bill.

I think there are too many Americans who don't realize that 1) private, voluntary funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research is still legal, as is taxpayer funding of existing ESC lines, and 2) stem cells can be obtained without killing human beings.

Some of the people who DO understand the facts retort with "Hey, these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.  Why not use them for valuable research?"

If it is so promising, though, then private funding should be no problem.

But getting back to the human beings we're talking about here... I consider "extra" embryos to be a problem with certain forms of "reproductive" technology.  If such technology routinely results in human beings being deliberately killed, maybe we shouldn't be using that technology to begin with.

Death row inmates are going to be executed anyway, but somehow I think many of some of the most vocal critics of Bush on this matter would vehemently oppose fatal experiments on these inmates.

Also, even if the laws were written so that this funding would cover only work on human beings who were going to be dstroyed, someone's going to make a stink because we could do MORE research if we'd allow human beings to be created just for experiments.  Where is the line drawn?  Also, to justify this by saying "They are early on in their development anyway."  Where does that line get drawn?  Is it okay to spend taxpayer money to take a 5-month-along fetus' brain for experiments?

One of the practical problems here is that when a Federal program is created, it almost will never go away.  It will be expanded with the boundaries being pushed and the funding being increased.  Once we make it profitable to do something, especially if that profit comes in the form of "free" taxpayer money, we instantly create a lobby that will do everything it can to keep that money flowing and to relax any restrictions.

I realize that there are people hoping for miracle cures for horrible diseases and injuries, but do the potential, unknown ends justify all means?

The Los Angeles Times shills again for a tiny fringe minority trying to force a new paradigm of society onto an unwilling populace.

Manhattan Building Explodes and Collapses

When is Bush going to get us out of that quagmire?!?

Seriously, though, my prayers are with those impacted by this.

Comments on something good that the Los Angeles Times ran today.

First, Costa Mesa, located in Orange County, California...

Protesters Denounce Costa Mesa for Policies on Migrants
About 65 take part in march organized by OCC student critical of mayor.
By SAM MILLER - The Orange County Register

Quotes:
>>An immigrant-rights [read: invasion] advocate who has called the mayor of Costa Mesa "racist" led a march Saturday against the city's immigration policies.

About 65 people joined Coyotl Tezcalipoca, an Orange Coast College student, at 19th Street and Placentia Avenue in Costa Mesa, chanting and waving protest signs.<<

Oooh, 65 people.  I'm surprised CNN wasn't doing live coverage.

>>At issue: the Costa Mesa City Council's decision to close its day-labor site last year and its plan to have police enforce federal immigration laws and help deport undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes.<<

If someone wants to have a day-labor site on private property, I think that's fine.  But unless the payroll tax laws are reformed, the sites are problematic.  But what is wrong with deporting invaders who have committed other crimes in addition to breaking immigration laws?

>>One sign read: "Is this town mean-spirited?"<<

You're a meanie if you want to fight crime.  Got that?

>>"We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us," they chanted.<<

Really?  You've been alive that long?  Amazing!  You're been alive since the first half of the 19th century, and you just happened to stroll southward at the wrong time, and whammo!  Suddenly California is part of the U.S. and you were trapped in Mexico.

Let's all support Costa Mesa!  Viva Costa Mesa!

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles...

Clinton Speaks Out on Illegal Workers
Addressing the La Raza event, he calls the debate a divisive distraction.
By Jeffrey L. Rabin - Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Quotes:
>>Former President Clinton told one of the nation's largest Latino civil rights groups Saturday that the conservative wing of the Republican Party is using the immigration issue to divide Congress and the nation.

"It is a way of creating a divided community and distracting people from the real challenges facing the country, whether it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, or homeland security, or how to build a clean energy future, or how to solve the healthcare crisis, or how to create new jobs for America," he said.<<

No, Bill, invasion is a very serious issue, and it is the invaders who are dividing this nation.  If our borders aren't secure, the terrorists in Afghanista and Iraq can easily come here and disrupt our homeland security.  We use more energy (and have slower traffic) because we are crowded with invaders who aren't even supposed to be here.  Our healthcare industry faces many challenges, one of them being that invaders are getting free medical care by clogging our emergency rooms to the point that they are being shut down.  We have very low unemployment, so creating jobs isn't a problem, but some of our wages are being depressed by invaders.

This is why the immigration enforcers actually did some enforcement under your watch.  Was it a mistake on your part that they were tougher than they are now under Bush?

>>Clinton made the remarks, some of his most extensive since the issue of illegal immigration heated up in Washington this year, before several thousand people at the opening session of the four-day National Council of La Raza convention in Los Angeles.<<

Just imagine a National Council of White People.  It's silly.

>>"It's crazy to think about sending 11 million people home" to their native countries, said the former president, who called the recent demonstrations for immigrant rights "incredibly moving."<<

Yeah, they were moving all right.  Traffic was great when the March of the Criminals was going on!  I wish they's boycott every day!  As for deportation... you're right.  Rounding up the 11-20 million invaders would be very difficult.  However, that is a different issue than: 1. securing our boders; 2. deporting invaders who commit other crimes after breaking immigration laws; 3. enforcing employment laws; 4. moving away from income-tax supported services to a new framework.

>>"At least it says we ought to provide a path to citizenship for these hard-working, law-abiding people," Clinton said.<<
 
People who break immigration laws aren't law abiding, by definition.

>>He suggested that Bush had a different understanding of the immigration issue because of his ties to Texas, where Latinos have been part of the history and culture for many generations.<<
 
This isn't about Latinos.  It isn't about Hispanics.  It isn't about immigrants who legally come here to visit or to become citizens.  It is about people invading our country, getting health care, education, and infrastructure paid for my other people who don't have a choice, and committing serious crimes.  Making this about Latinos, Hispanics, or immigrants is an insult to the citizens who fall into those categories.

>>"America is and always will be a nation of immigrants," he said.<<
 
LEGAL immigrants, not invaders.

Comments on a piece in today's Los Angeles Times.

This Los Angeles Times headline gets it wrong:

New York, Georgia Courts Rule Against Gay Marriage
The state rulings are seen as big setbacks for rights activists, and may have wide ramifications.
By Richard Fausset and Ellen Barry - Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

There is no such thing as "gay marriage", so it can't be ruled against.  It's like saying the court ruled against dry water.  Marriage, throughout history, even with polygamy and other variations, has always been something involving BOTH sexes together.

Quotes:
>>Opponents of [redefining] marriage see Thursday's rulings as evidence they are gaining the upper hand in state-by-state battles over one of the nation's most contentious cultural issues. They especially welcome the victories after the U.S. Senate last month did not approve a constitutional amendment banning [counterfeit] marriages nationwide.<<

The thing is, there shouldn't need to be an amendment to protect marriage.  The legal definition of marriage should stay the same unless and until elected legislators vote to change it.  And yet activist judges who want to counterfeit the most basic of human institutions have made such an amendment "necessary".

>>The Georgia case dealt with whether a state [counterfeit] marriage ban — approved in 2004 by 76% of voters — violated a state rule that ballot measures can address only one issue.

Lambda Legal and others argued that the ballot language appeared to ban [counterfeit]  marriages as well as gay civil unions. The attorneys said that was unfair to voters who might oppose [counterfeit] marriage but support civil unions with some marriage-like benefits.<<

How is that unfair?  You either like the way the measure is written or you don't.  You can vote yes or no or abstain.

>>In a strong dissent, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, joined by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, condemned the majority decision as a step away from New York's "proud tradition of affording equal rights."<<
 
Everyone has equal access to marriage.  I know, I know... not everyone wants to exercise that access, but it doesn't make the statement any less true.  I know it is hard for some people to accept, but there is a difference between men and women, and that difference has something to do with what makes marriage, marriage.  Why is marriage the only institution where Leftists think it is okay to exclude one of the sexes?

>>Most New Yorkers, Kaye wrote, "can look back on, or forward to, their wedding as among the most significant events of their lives."<<

So who is stopping people from having ceremonies, exchanging rings, and throwing parties?  If you want the memories, you can still have them.  Just don't counterfeit something as important as marriage.

>>Though Congress passed a law banning federal recognition of [counterfeit] marriage in 1996, the conservatives believe that only a constitutional amendment would be certain to keep the issue out of judges' hands.<<

Don't forget that Bill Clinton signed that law.  I guess Dizzy Dean thinks Clinton is a bigot, too.

>>For gay-rights advocates such as Buckel, the strategy is to chip away at anti-gay-marriage legislation state by state.<<

Translation: He wants to use radical activist judges to force all of the rest of us to accept counterfeits.

>>A San Francisco Superior Court judge last year struck down state laws that limited marriage to "a man and a woman" as unconstitutional, saying they violated a person's fundamental right to marry and illegally discriminated on the basis of gender.<<
 
A "right to marry"?  There would be a lot more homeless cats if we really had a "right" to marry (it's an old maid joke).  A marriage license means societal approval, and nobody has a right to societal approval for whatever they decide to do.  If society decides to willingly grant that approval, that's one thing.

(HT: Drudge)
 
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/06/115-07062006.html
Statement by Howard Dean on the New York Court of Appeals Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage

>>"As Democrats, we believe that every American has a right to equal protection under the law and to live in dignity. And we must respect the right of every family to live in dignity with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law. "<<

Right.  Everyone currently has the same access to marriage, though not everyone wants to exercise that access.  So what?  There is no good reason to change marriage for everyone - by court order - based on the whims of a tiny few.

>>"Today's decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal."<<

So Jesus is a bigot?  Martin Luther King Jr. was a bigot?  Pope John Paul II was a bigot?  A court could call H2SO4 water, but it wouldn't make it water.