Joe Biden Said What?..........................

White house is trying to downplay good ol Joe's latest Gaffe. They should put a muzzle on him and be done with it.

http://www.politico.com/singletitlevideo.html?bcpid=1155201977&bctid=21663931001


Excerp from Politico:

Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that he would not recommend taking any commercial flight or riding in a subway car “at this point” because swine flu virus can spread “in confined places.” A little more than one hour later, Biden rushed out a statement backing off.

“I would tell members of my family — and I have — I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now,” Biden said on NBC’s “Today” show.. “It’s not that it’s going to Mexico. It’s [that] you’re in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. …

“So, from my perspective, what it relates to is mitigation. If you’re out in the middle of a field when someone sneezes, that’s one thing. If you’re in a closed aircraft or closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it’s a different thing.”

That contradicted more restrained advice from President Barack Obama and the federal government — and the last thing the White House wants to do right now is shut down the airline industry and big-city subways out of mass panic.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21925.html

Posted by Cecilia Trent

Vote No On Hate Crime Legislation

April 28, 2000

The House Judiciary Committee has already approved H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Now it comes to a full vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.

This legislation is an attack on freedom of speech guaranteed to every American by the First Amendment.

The bill will make it a federal crime to cause harm to someone who is a member of a group protected under this law. Groups will be defined based on gender, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation and various social factors.

If passed, this bill can also be used to limit freedom of expression in churches.

Tell your representative that freedom of thought is not a crime.

++ Contact your representative now!

Posted By Cecilia Trent

Black Clergy Lead Protest Against Gay Marriage

Posted By Cecilia Trent
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=507786

WASHINGTON - Black clergy have led a rally against homosexual marriage in the nation's capital.

The Washington, D.C., city council voted unanimously this month to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they're legal. Before becoming law, the legislation requires a final council vote next week and then must be reviewed by Congress, which has final say over the city's laws.

But local clergy told about 200 supporters that God created marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and governments have no right to change it.

The ministers also insisted that gay marriage is not a civil right, and led the mostly black crowd in singing "We Shall Overcome" to suggest that their religious view might prevail.

City councilman and former Mayor Marion Berry, who missed the first council vote, led about 200 protesters in chanting, "No to same-sex marriage in D.C.!"

Will this story get the same attention and produce the same level of hatred and criticism that Miss California continues to endure for her stance on traditional marriage? No of course not. It would not be politically correct.

Posted By
Cecilia Trent

Cecilia Trent...What Exactly Did Obama Supporters Know?

Remember the overwhelming controversy regarding the Zogby Poll that proved that the majority of Obama supporters were uninformed? Well howobamagotelected.com has commissioned a new poll to find out how McCain supporters would fare. The results are not surprising.

Wilson Research Poll


The 12 "Zogby" questions were duplicated, one on the Keating scandal was added for extra balance. The results from Obama voters were virtually IDENTICAL in both polls.

Here are the highlights:

35 % of McCain voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

18% of Obama voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.

Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.

Those that got "congressional control" correct voted 56-43 for McCain.

Those that got "congressional control" wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.

The poll also asked voters to name all the media sources from which they got information.

Those “exposed” to Fox News got "congressional control" correct 64-25 (+39)

Those “exposed” to CNN got “congressional control” correct 48-38 (+10)

Those “exposed” to Network news got “congressional control” correct 48-39 (+9)

Those “exposed” to print media got “congressional control” correct 52-37 (+15)

Those “exposed” to MSNBC got “congressional control” correct 55-35 (+20)

Those “exposed” to talk radio got “congressional control” correct 61-29 (+32)

Voters in the "South" had the best response rate on “congressional control” (+22)

Voters in the "Northeast" had the worst response rate on “congressional control” (+9)

Those “exposed” to Fox News voted 70-29 for McCain.

Those “exposed” to CNN voted 63-37 for Obama.

Those “exposed” to MSNBC voted 73-26 for Obama.

Those “exposed” to network newscasts voted 62-37 for Obama.

Those “exposed” to national newspapers voted 64-36 for Obama.

Those “exposed” to talk radio voted 61-38 for McCain.

Those that could associate Bill Ayers' name/story with Obama voted 52-48 for McCain (We added Ayers name to the "Zogby" question and it significantly increased the rate of correct response, indicating a very superficial grasp of the overall story).

Those that knew Obama had made negative comments about “coal power plants" voted 76-24 for McCain.

Those that knew Obama had his opponents knocked off the ballot in his first campaign voted 66-34 for McCain.
McCain voters did poorly (only 42% correct) onteh Keating question and,in general, the voters did universally worse on questions where the negative information was about their candidate

Women under 55 did worse than they might have by guessing on four of the thirteen questions, and yet 95% of them knew that Palin was the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter. Even 95% of those in this demographic group who didn't know “congressional control” got this question correct.

Those “exposed” to MSNBC “scored” 90% correct on the three Palin questions (including an incredible 98% on the “pregnant teenage daughter” question), while those not “exposed” to MSNBC averaged 84% correct on those three questions.

See full poll results at http://howobamagotelected.com/

Cecilia Trent On Commercial Attacking Prop 8

I thank God for the Mormon Church. They worked tirelessly along side the Catholic Church and the Evangelicals united as one to protect the definition of marriage.

These people scream intolerance and call those in support of Prop 8 bigots and haters but they are the ones vandalizing churches, cars, homes, assaulting little old ladies carrying crosses and boycotting businesses of financial supporters of prop 8. They want tolerance as long as you agree with their views.

Why are they not protesting and attacking the black community who voted over 70% in favor of Prop 8? Why ? Because they know it's not politically correct that's why. They know that support will turn against them so they attack the churches while the media turns a blind eye. Who cares if they attack the churches. Evidently our rights don't matter. It's a pathetic world that we are living in.

The ridiculous thing about all of this is that California has the strongest domestic partnership laws in the Country. They already have all the rights that married heterosexuals have. They are simply trying to redefine marriage a tradition that throughout the ages in all societies has been recognized as a union between a man and a woman.

Their argument is always the same. "I have a right to marry the person I love." Well if that's the case. What about polygamists? Pedophiles? Don't they have rights? Why can't I marry my father or my brother if I fall in love with them? How about my dog. I love my dog. Why can't I marry my dog? Where does it end? They are making a mockery out of the sanctity of marriage.

Cecilia Trent The Ramifications Of Passing Prop 8

You are absolutely right. If the California Supreme Court once again overturns the will of the people the consequences beyond the government’s infringement of religious beliefs are extremely serious and will have greater implications to our entire society. Below is a summary of an article written by Professor Mark R. Schneider.

So what are the stakes?

1. Homosexual marriages will further spread across the nation.

California is a trend setter. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 to protect states opposed to homosexual marriage against legal challenges based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV Section I) of the constitution will be severely tested.

2. Mandatory promotion of homosexual unions in public schools.

This is already the law in Massachusetts, even for Christians. In CA, health education law requires that children as young as kindergarten be taught about marriage. (Education Code Section 51890)

3. Hate Crime and Anti-Discrimination Laws. SB 777, prohibits CA schools from discriminating based on “sexual orientation” is an open door for even more restrictive laws to come. In Canada and parts of Europe it is a crime to speak out publicly against homosexuality. (Where does that leave our Pastors and our Priests)?

4. Pressure on 501(c) (3) (i.e. Churches to recognize homosexual marriage.

If same sex marriage is a fundamental right, then the federal government cannot be seen to favor groups that discriminate against it.

5. Professional accreditation, exemptions and licenses could be tied to
Recognition of homosexual rights.

This is already happening. For example, the California Supreme Court ruled
recently against medical doctors who refuse to perform artificial insemination
on lesbians.

6 Efforts to recognize polygamous, polyamory (mixed) and incestuous marriages.

If Prop 8 fails then there exists no logical argument to withhold marriage from a variety of unions between consenting adults.

7 Children will Suffer

Today, 40% of American children are being raised without fathers and the statistics for children that come from these homes are grim. School drop out rates, psychological problems, teen pregnancy, becoming a victim of a crime are all multiplied many times over. Seventy percent of long term prison inmates grew up in unstable or broken homes. In those parts of Europe where same sex marriage is practiced the deterioration of the family has accelerated. In Denmark the out of wedlock birthrate is now an astonishing one is six.

Children are entitled to a mother and a father. Innocent children artificially brought into same sex unions are forever deprived of this birthright

A Liberal's View In Support Of Prop 8

Here is a copy of a Los Angeles Times article by a liberal writer who opposes same sex marriage. It was very useful in convincing voters to vote yes on 8 when they were not buying the religious argument.

LOS ANGELES TIMES


Protecting marriage to protect children
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.

By David Blankenhorn
September 19, 2008
» Discuss Article (74 Comments)
I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.
But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion.

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.

The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?

Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage."

Just A Little Hickup. The Fight Goes On!

The Senate just voted to approve Kathleen Sebelius’ nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. We fought long and hard against Sebelius and we should be proud of our efforts. Many Senators were encouraged to speak in defense of Life on the Senate floor while debating this nomination.

We can find some solace in knowing that our fight against Kathleen Sebelius’ nomination has brought more attention to Obama’s nominees and their radical pro-abortion agenda, and has activated more pro-life Americans to join us in this fight. This grassroots energy will only increase our momentum as we confront the next round of President Obama’s extreme nominees, beginning with radical pro-abortion nominee, Dawn Johnsen.

We will never cease our fight to protect unborn boys and girls because every life counts.