I would like to invite my readers to view my new website www.corson.org. I have changed this website from a family-album oriented site to one which contains my blogs (political, economic, sociological and theological pages) along with commentaries from over 20 conservative columnists, like Thomas Sowell, George Will, Pat Buchanan, Cal Thomas, David Limbaugh, Larry Elder, Ann Coulter and others. My wife and I are adding to it daily.

Please join us over at www.corson.org and feel free to e-mail us (go to the contact page) with your comments, complaints, suggestions, etc.

---John---

Retirement, for me, was just around the corner.  Two years ago, while just 52 years of age, I was pretty much putting things in order for a decent retirement by the age of 67.  Although I thought I would be able to retire much earlier, I was liking what I was doing, ministering to a nice congregation of people and living in a quiet sub rural community.

When I came to this church I really wanted to make this my last "hurrah."  I hate moving and I don't like change.  Even though I was a believer of moving forward, I certainly didn't want to move backward and I certainly didn't want to stay the course in any mundane status quo that would lead me or my church to mediocrity.

It seems that when things roll along, even if slowly but surely, something comes along and pulls the program down.  It goes without saying, that which came along was a declining economy and the Obama Administration.  There is no doubt that the former caused the latter as more than a majority of the citizens of this country believed that a change was needed in order to positively address the demands of the economy.  With that we got socialism.

With the downturn of the economy came the decline in contributions to charitable organizations, including the church.  There also came the decline in my 403-B retirement account.  Between the end of September and March I lost nearly 60 percent of my 403-B.  Fortunately that was not the only retirement account I have, but the other two render less than 2 percent interest and I didn't contribute as much to those as I had before.

Is retirement possible now?  Absolutely not.  My wife and I did a little accounting the other day and we came up with a conservative date for my retirement.  Barring a complete stock market crash, a great depression in which stagflation reaches worse proportions than that under Jimmy Carter and the elimination of deductions on charitable giving, we came up with December 31, 2039 - my 85th birthday!

But, we are on the verge of a depression, just how "great" remains to be seen, but if history is any indicator, it will be "GREAT."  History teaches us that raising taxes, government programs and government intrusion into the private sector leads to prolonged economic pain.  You need only look back to FDR's first two terms to see just how disastrous socialistic programs are.

Now comes President Obama with his proposals for reductions in tax deductions for charitable contributions.  As Dick Morris pointed out last week, the president was rather glib when he went before the camera to give his reasons for cutting the deductions.  He noted that Obama's "pathetic defense at his press conference -- that he would still give a $100 dollar check even if he got $11 less of tax deduction from it was both disingenuous and beside the point."

It is now certainly the buzz of the philanthropy world.  This is all a part of the president's fiscal 2010 budget blueprint.  It will first affect Americans in the top income brackets. While some fear a falloff in donations, others are asking about motive. Would wealthy Americans really stop giving to charities if their deductions were reduced?

Under the president's plan, itemized tax deductions for charitable giving and mortgages would be capped for those earning more than $250,000 a year. Changes would be phased in gradually over the next few years. So in 2010, instead of getting a 33% or 35% deduction for charitable donations, Americans in the top income brackets, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, would get somewhere in the neighborhood of 28%.

In the Obama budget, the cuts on tax deductions for upper-income Americans -- coupled with cuts in government spending -- are projected to help raise $634 billion for a kind of big federal piggy bank that would be used to extend health coverage to the more than 47 million people in America who are uninsured and subsidize premiums for others who can't afford what they have.

Critics are already voicing concern that charities, hard hit by a decline in donations because of sinking stock prices on Wall Street, could suffer further. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the No. 2  Democrat in the House, said the potential loss of philanthropic giving is "clearly one of our concerns." And CNBC's Maria Bartiromo said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today that the Obama blueprint comes with "such unintended consequences" and said of charitable donations, "Get ready for those to go off a cliff."

Add this dilemma on top of the fact that each day nearly 18,000 Americans (on average) lose their jobs and another 20 million or so are underemployed and you have the recipe for a drop in church contributions, not to mention other charitable giving.

I minister to a church wherein the giving once topped off back in the late summer of 2008 and has slowly declined since.  Mine is not the only church.  A recent survey of over 1600 churches across the country, rural and suburban, shows that offerings have steadily declined over the last six month.  The "average" church's giving has slipped some 8 percent but most of that due to fears of job loss, cutback in pay or the mere saving for that certain rainy day.

Ah "retirement."  A word that perhaps will remain only a word out of the mouth's of wishful thinkers and may become only a memory for those who are currently retired but must now face the probability of having to go to their local Wal-Mart to see if there is an opening.

I have recently asked my wife how I would look in a blue smock.  When she asked why, my response was, if the church can't pay a livable wage I will have to start using a new vocabulary: "Hi! Welcome to Wal-Mart."  To which she responded, "You're too young, better get a back brace and gloves."

This past Wednesday, my son called to tell me he was scared.  This young man, never one to be afraid of anything, let alone anyone, was now afraid because he had just heard that the government accounting office (GAO) reported that every American family will owe approximately $116,000 to help pay off the national debt.  Well, it ain't going to get better.  Thanks to the proposed White House budget and congressional additions to boot.

When my youngest grandson was born two years ago, he came into the world owing about $15,000! If my daughter-in-law (his mother) has her way he will soon have a little brother or sister and the stats reveal he, or she, will owe $26,000 - providing he, or she, is born before the end of the year.  

That figure (about the price of a new Camaro) represents the share of the public debt carried by anybody born in the United States today, according to the fiscal watchdog group The Concord Coalition. 

Take Jada Grace Larsen. She was born Sunday at New Jersey's Hackensack Medical Center.  "I'm nervous for her and her future and what she's being born into," mother Jeanmarie Larsen, 37, told FOXNews.com Wednesday. 

She and her husband Andrew, 35, said they plan to raise their newborn to know the "value of the dollar" by teaching her to live within her means and avoid frivolous spending. But if Washington doesn't do the same, the individual burden from the national debt only gets more expensive down the road. 

When Jada is 10 years old, for example, that per-person debt increases to about $51,000 -- based on the latest deficit and debt projections by the Congressional Budget Office, which looked at the impact of President Obama's budget proposal in 2019. 

Josh Gordon, policy director at The Concord Coalition, said such soaring debt levels, while sometimes hard to comprehend, have myriad adverse effects down the road. "The interest you're paying sucks up valuable resources," Gordon said. "It leads to a situation where we're more at the whims of international investors." 

The total national debt, as of this week, is above $11 trillion.  Add, what undoubtedly will be more bailouts and stimulus packages, as well as the additional I.O.U.'s the Democrats plan to pay back, then you have a recipe for disaster!

Gordon arrived at a per-person figure based only on the amount of debt held by the public, or $6.7 trillion. The price tag? $22,000 a head.  That does not include the total national debt as noted above ($11 trillion)

While Republicans argue that looming additions to the debt amount to generational theft, Obama says deficit spending, and his $3.6 trillion budget for next year, is needed to jump-start the economy and generate lasting financial stability. 

Dean Baker, co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, also said the size of the economy will play a bigger role than the debt in the quality of life for future generations. Plus he said a lot of that debt is picked up by buyers in the U.S. -- not just overseas. 

Jeanmarie Larsen said despite her concerns about what the future might hold, she is staying optimistic and banking on an economic turnaround. "We have to have faith in our new president that things will get better," she said.

Back to my son's phone call the other night: His fear, as is mine and I would say a whole host of Americans, is that the taxpayers will not only pay for the stimulus and bailout packages, but will have to help pay China back for all the loans they carry on us. 

Once you carry over government's outstanding deficits from prior years, the total national debt comes to just over $10.6 trillion right now. Every individual in the United States would have to chip in roughly $38,500 apiece to pay it off.  My son merely multiplied this figure by three (for him, his wife and son) and arrived at what the GAO has concluded would be the average debt the average family would owe!

Keep in mind that the total federal indebtedness has nearly doubled in just a decade and promises to jump another 1.2 trillion by the end of the year when Congress approves the Obama budget along with the additional goodies the Democrats will throw in.

Yeah, President Obama has promised to go throw the budget line by line and mark out any and all unnecessary spending.  Keep in mind "unnecessary" is the operative word and in a word where liberal politicians broaden their base by making promises that create spending, their "budget needs," collectively, are all necessary (at least to them)!  And, they are destructive to us!

Does anyone know what comes after "trillions" of dollars?  Can you say "Quadrillion"?

Here is a hot item: Would a person who used to be reliant upon a paycheck from a public radio station have to be a liberal Democrat to sustain his or her job?  I asked this question because that was the situation in which I found myself first, back in 1980 when I was working as an announcer for a Baltimore public radio facility.  That was the year of Ronald Reagan's victory over Jimmy Carter and the beginning of my journey as a Conservative.

While I was not a vocal advocate for Reagan's agenda, I did, on many occasions, made pithy statements to my fellow employees like "I'm an ABC type of guy: 'Anybody But Carter!'" Yet, under Carter, subsidies for public broadcasting increased more than 65% and was being threatened with Reagan's proposal to virtually cut those funds in half. Was I a fool? Cutting my nose off despite my face?  Looking back on it, I saw it as a challenge.  If public television and radio needed money and the government was cutting it back to the bone, then let this media sell commercials!  Cut the ties with the government and be free!  What a fool I was thought to be!

Funding for public broadcasting was indeed cut during the Reagan years and increased very little under the elder Bush.  But in many states, funding increased, including in Maryland.  Since that time, I worked for public radio in Norfolk, VA, having been hired when Bill Clinton was in his first term and had already increased spending for this outlet by 6 percent.  Virginia, under Governors Chuck Robb, Gerald Baliles, and Douglas Wilder (all Democrats), increased funding by nearly 100 percent from 1982 and 1994. Public broadcasting survived through the efforts of the state government even when it looked like the death toll was sounded through the Reagan cuts. Hurray! No commercials!

Since the inception of PBS and later NPR, these two entities have been totally in step with the liberal establishment and, through their various news magazines like the McNeil-Lehrer Hour (now the Lehrer Hour), All Things Considered and Morning Edition they have consistently promoted a liberal bias only surpassed by the likes of MSNBC and the strange Obama bedfellows Chris Matthews and Keith Obermann.  MSNBC, as Bernard Goldberg (formerly of CBS News) has said "loves Barack Obama."  "They are in bed with him, they have a slobbering love affair with him.  MSNBC served as the Obama Campaign Headquarters throughout the 2008 campaign."

Hardly anybody with an IQ of 25 or above will argue this point.  Ann Coulter would agree with this since she has all but pointed out that liberals, for whatever reason, can't get their IQ to 25.  This being the case, my question is this: If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and gang in Congress manages down the road to restore or come up with a version of the Fairness Doctrine and if Barack Obama signs it into law, will PBS, NPR and MSNBC be forced to give "equal time and equal consideration for "the other side"? 

For those of my reader unfamiliar with the Fairness Doctrine, this was once a policy of the Federal Communications Commission which mandated that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

With the ending of the Fairness Doctrine, AM radio stations started to come alive again with talk-radio formats.  Rush Limbaugh went syndicated in 1988, and ever since we have seen a proliferation of talk radio political pundits and commentators.  An interesting result of this has been the huge success of conservative talk show host and the sad loss of a large majority of liberals.  The demographics who that listeners of talk radio tend to be white, male, an even split between white and blue collar workers, holding traditional values and believe in limited government.

With a possible return of the Fairness Doctrine, the less than successful liberal talk show hosts like the comedian Al Frankin (the Senator-wannabe from the state that would elect a crocodile if any lived in that state) would be forced on broadcasters at the expense of listenership. This veiled attempt by liberal Democrats to get airtime on AM radio will not fly!  Liberals have no message of substance and the average American will not sit by their radio to listen to haranguers blast them for being racist, xenophobic, homophobic, chauvinistic, right-wing religious nuts.  They will turn their radios off - simple as that! 

I wonder why the liberal Democrats just can't be satisfied with having most of the visual media in their pocket.  The virtually own MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN, and they certainly DO OWN PBS and on the radio side, they own NPR.  Come on Dems!  Can't we racist, xenophobic, homophobic, chauvinistic, right-wing religious nut have AM radio with it's static sounds and thin band frequency and one news outlet like FOX?

Pelosi, Reid and many in the Obama Administration say "NO" because we don't seem to know what is good for the country.  To them, what is good for the country is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to limit American's exposure to right-wing zealotry.  The operative hyphenated word here is "RIGHT-WING"  Notice, nothing is said of "LEFT-WING."

Bernie Goldberg is right when he says, we had the Fairness Doctrine when Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Reagan were president.  ABC, NBC and CBS had a hard time finding anything good to say about them, their policies or their private lives.  But they feel all over themselves with Kennedy, Johnson and Carter were in the White House.  Was that fair?  Absolutely not!  As I have said elsewhere on these pages, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  The return of the Fairness Doctrine, if history is any authority here, will only weaken the voice of conservatives and nothing will change on NPR, PBS, MSNBC, et. al.

Fairness? No!  It's not fairness, it fascism!  Oops! Now the liberal Democrats will accuse me of misusing a word they have reserved for us racist, xenophobic, homophobic, chauvinistic, right-wing, blah, blah, blah...

Philosopher George Santayana is the one credited with what has come to be a very true, yet pithy observation: Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. There have been several variations to this quote including the very accurate phrase: "He who does not learn from the past is destined to repeat it."  The statements vary, but have the same effect, viz. we must learn from the past!

Some past events are, for many people, worth repeating.  Things such as a successful business venture, a great vacation, a family get-together, winning the lottery, etc.  Who wouldn't want to repeat buying a winning lottery ticket?  But every person who has lived through any catastrophe, loss of a job, death of a loved one, a fire that destroys a home, or an economic disaster, does not want to live through these things again!  Unless, of course, they are brain-dead or evil!  This being the case, I ask, is the Obama Administration brain-dead or just plain evil?

On can argue that the President, along with the liberal Democrat who hold the majority in Congress, are brain-dead.  After all, ceaseless bailouts, deficit spending, raising taxes and the restructuring of the American society as a whole is rather careless and downright stupid. It is interesting to note that some in the Obama White House are not aware of past programs and political decisions which drove our country into chaotic times.  Historical events of past presidents like Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society created a generation of people who have been hurt by laws and executive orders which radically changed tax codes, business ventures, lifestyles and person liberty.  Many people became dependent on government instead of being free to pursue their own dreams.

In recent decades many economists have questioned whether New Deal policies contributed to recovery or prolonged the depression. Many have pointed out that the most troubling issue with the New Deal was the persistence of high unemployment throughout F.D.R.'s first two terms.  Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway in their book Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America noted that from 1934 to 1940, the median annual unemployment rate was 17.2 percent. At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent!  Even, in 1941, amidst the military buildup for World War II, 9.9 percent of American workers were unemployed.

Jim Powell in his landmark book on the failures of F.D.R.s New Deal has noted that in recent years scholarly investigators have raised some provocative questions.  In FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression Powell detailed how New Dealers made it more expensive of business owners to hire people, how FDR's Justice Department filed over 150 lawsuits threatening big employers, how New Deal policies discouraged private investment and how because of that private employment failed to revive.  He also points out how many of FDR's programs pushed up the cost of living, proved how New Dealers destroyed food while people went hungry, showed to what extent New Deal labor laws penalized blacks, and how the FDR Administration pushed to break up the strongest banks in the country. Two more issues Powell discusses are why didn't FDR's public works projects bring about recovery? and why was so much of the New Deal relief spending channeled away from the poorest people?

Stephen Moore with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, has pointed out that the greatest and most enduring economic myth of the 20th century is the idea that Roosevelt's New Deal pulled American out of the Great Depression.  He notes that this fantasy is very prevalent today in that liberal Democratic leaders in Congress call for a "new" New Deal to lift the incomes of the middle class and shelter American workers from the anxieties attached to the competitive forces of a global economy.

We are now informed that free market ideas have become old-fashioned, outdated and irrelevant and what Americans need now are new government regulations, guard rails, and some 80 programs to correct the excesses of capitalism, such as the housing bubble.

Time Magazine, November 15, 2008 issue featured a cover picture of Barack Obama in FDR persona with the featured article centering in on the new President's appeal to many of the ideas of Roosevelt's New Deal.  It is as if Obama wants a return to the era of FDR in dealing with this great recession which stands on the precipice of a Great Depression.  But I would remind Mr. Obama of the famous testimony FDR's Treasury Secretary made to the House Ways and Means Committee in May, 1939:

We have tried spending money.  We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.  And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job.  I want to see this country prosperous.  I want to see people get a job.  I want to see people get enough to eat.  We have never made good on our promises....I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started....And an enormous debt to boot!

Here we are on the throws of another New Deal era!  Congress and the Obama White House are wanting to spend, spend and spend - doubling the federal debt to nearly 23 trillion dollars by the end of his first term and there is no assurance that things will get better.  In the days to come, I will compare and contrast FDR's New Deal and the state of the country in the 1930s to the programs and proposals of the current administration which, all hints point to, adds up to a "New" New Deal.

Liberal acquaintances I know and others who have responded to my posts here and elsewhere are trying to convince me that I am a racist.  Given their comments, which are more like rants, I have enumerated their reasons behind my blatant racism.  Here are the ten most cited arguments that the average liberal gives as proof that I am considered a certifiable racist.  I have taken the liberty of cleaning up their verbiage and put them into intelligent and understandable language:

1) I am against big government and big government bailouts for failing institutions;
2) I don't want to pay for someone else's mortgages, nor share my wealth;
3) I don't want to be punished for having a successful business;
4) I voted for a Hero and not a handout;
5) I believe that the government works for me and I don't work for the government;
6) I believe that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles which once made us great;
7) I believe the government is the problem; not the solution to the problem;
8) I don't want to be told who I can't disagree with or suffer jail time for uttering "hate-speech";
9) I am against the Fairness Doctrine - knowing that AM Talk Radio would be squelched, but not NBC, PBS and NPR; and
10) I believe that God has already sent us a savior and his name is not Barack H. Obama.

What prompted me to post these was a comment made by neighbor today. When I said to him I believed the Democratic Party should be renamed the Socialist Party, he responded: "Shh, someone might call you a racist for saying that!" OK, let's add that to my list of ten giving me 11 reasons why I am a racist, even though there is nothing implicitly or explicitly noted in these statements which even allude to me being a racist. It's just that I don't agree with the Democratic Party which means I don't agree with their leader, who just happens to be black, which then means I hate black people. You had to stretch a long way to arrive at that conclusion didn't you?

I am tired of being called a racist. The Democrats and liberals call me that all the time. I guess it's better to be a racist than a slave owner! After all, the Democrats "own" the African-American vote by giving them victim status and then passing entitlement programs which "enslaves" their minds. This makes the 12th reason why I am a racist, viz. I won't let the government control my mind!

Democracy, as we once knew it, is quite possibly dead. One thing is for certain, if our Founding Fathers were to return from the dead and see what we have done to our country, they quite possibly would lead another revolution! Maybe it's time that we should too!

I realize there are probably several more reasons for me being a certified racist, not the least of which is because I occasionally watch Fox News. By the way, let's make it an unlucky 13 reasons for me being a racist: I like FOX News and occasionally watch Bill O'Reilly!

Now we have another lawsuit by Gay and Lesbian groups.  This time it is against a Christian psychologist who went into business bringing couples together and helping to form wholesome relationships.  The problem is these are heterosexual couples.  Neil Clark Warren, the founder of eHarmony.com was targeted by the Attorney General of New Jersey in which state eHarmony is based.  The Attorney General's office began looking at the company early in 2005 when a homosexual man filed a complaint with the state alleging that the company's policy of matching only opposite-sex couples violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination law, which covers "sexual orientation."

Now, instead of fighting this battle anymore eHarmony has decided to settle out of court thus saving what could be tens of millions of dollars in fines, legal fees and damages.  As part of the settlement eHarmony has decided to launch a new matchmaking website for homosexual singles called CompatiblePartners.net, which will be aimed solely at the homosexual community. Also as part of the settlement, eHarmony will advertise the website in homosexual media outlets, will allow the first 10,000 users to register free and will pay $50,000 to the attorney general's office and $5,000 to the man who filed the initial complaint. It also will post a statement on the new website saying its matchmaking strategy is based on research involving heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples.

eHarmony says it did not violate the law but felt the need to settle the case. It was represented by Theodore B. Olson, who served as solicitor general in President Bush's first term. 

Jim Campbell, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a religious liberty legal organization, told Baptist Press "This situation just demonstrates once again those involved in the homosexual agenda will not tolerate anyone who doesn't embrace their views and promote their ideas," adding "Unfortunately, in this case, eHarmony surrendered to their demands. We feel they could have had a valid argument and could have taken a stand against this."

In a statement, Olson said eHarmony wanted to keep the matter out of the courts.

"Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the Attorney General since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable," Olson said. "eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships."

The New Jersey attorney general's office in July 2007 had found "probable cause" that eHarmony had violated the state's anti-discrimination law.

What next???  From earlier posts I pointed to no less than nine civil suits filed by or in behalf of Gay Rights Groups or gay individuals against church affiliated people, church entities, as well as para-church organizations.  The only thing left "religionly" speaking is the church itself and the people who pastor or lead them.

Now, this just in from an interview I read in the New York Post: According to an official with Lambda Legal Defense - which is the legal arm of the gay movement - churches are soon to be the target of investigations and possible civil and criminal proceedings.  Arnold Mondella, of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, says that there are several states in which "hate-speech" and "anti-defamation" laws including GLBT as a "protected class" can be used and tried against churches, para-church organizations and other groups restricting gay-rights and promoting hate.  If they can "prove" that preaching homosexuality as an abomination is a promotion of hatred or if a church denies gays membership in their congregations, or if a pastor or church as a whole denies the use of its building or property for gay weddings then these suits would be filed against, but would not be limited to, pastors, church trustees, and possibly the entire membership which votes on the exclusion of gays in any aspect of church life. 

Pastors would be fined and jailed for hate speech when they preach against homosexuality in any way.  Churches stand not only to lose tax-exemption but possible confiscation of property if it is believed that "klan-like rallies promoting hatred against this protected class," are being held.  Judicial rulings to allow the performance of same-sex marriages on church property could also be forthcoming.  Furthermore, pastors who are licensed to perform weddings will be required to perform same-sex marriages or face civil and criminal trials. 

Lambda legal has teamed up with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); the International Gay and Lesbians Rights Commission, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and our old friends at the ACLU to study and review any and all possible avenues to begins its all out assault on the churches.

Once the Obama Courts (certain to be filled with a number of Ruth Bader Ginsburg type appointees) overturn DOMA and every state constitution and constitutional amendments recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman, then they will go full throddle after any religious group that denies them "due process."

I wonder if they would sue God if a 7.6 quake along the San Andreas Fault dropped San Francisco into the Pacific.  I'm sure some gay guys mother would try!

If the Republican Party wants to retake the White House in 2012 then it has to appeal to the common voter. Who is this "common voter"? He/she votes with his/her heart not with the brain. He/she votes on the charisma of candidates not the content. Youth and minorities vote based on color not the character. But the GOP can give the voters all sides if it would "bite the bullet."

Since the "average" voter now cast his/her ballot based on externals rather than issue and morals, here would be the RX for the GOP's defeat and the solution to lead to victory... Use the Democrats "outward" appeal but keep and continue to promote traditional-conservative principles. Keeping in mind that issues and content is of secondary importance at best to the "average" voter, the Republican Party would be basically changing its complexion.  How would they do that?  By first remembering it is appeal and youth rather than substance that 50 percent of the population looks for.  A majority of today's voters cast ballots based on feelings, on perception that they will get something out of the deal, and on eloquence.  To most voters issues that don't seem to affect them aren't issues.  They are merely details they "feel" they can do without.

The party of Lincoln and Reagan would do well to remember that very little thought goes into the voting booth.  Thinking requires a lot from today's population and that could be too taxing to one's simple life.  Higher taxes don't mean a thing to people who don't pay taxes.  Liberal-Radical judges don't mean a thing to people who are only looking out for themselves and not the country.  A Majority of people now vote, as it were, for themselves, not for the country as a whole.  So, dear leaders of the GOP, you need to learn from the current state of affairs in politics.  It's not about issues its about looks.

That being the case, the Republicans should elect African-American Michael Steele as its RNC Chairman. This would put a black into the national GOP leadership.  Don't spend too much time touting the former Maryland Lt. Governor as a fiscal and social conservative as this would cloud the brains of thesimple-minded average American.  His leadership experience could guide the party into developing grass roots voter appeal, especially the young and the middle class.  He could even get a glance from middle and upper-middle income African-American's - the one's who actually pay taxes instead of living off of tax payers through welfare, earned income credits, Wick programs, federal subsidies and food stamps.

Then, in the primaries, GOP voters should pull the lever for Bobby Jindle of Louisiana. He would only be 40 years old, would have a proven record of executive leadership and (this is very important) has parents (both) who were born outside of the U.S. In fact, Jindle would qualify for the Presidency by just two months as his mother was seven months pregnant with him when she arrived in this country.

Finally, Jindle should appoint Sarah Palin as his running mate. She will still be under 50, would have six rather than two years of executive leadership and would have spent the previous four years studying up on national and international issues.

What this plan does is LOCK OUT THE WHITE MALE. The GOP is constantly being branded as the party of the rich white male. So, since American voters are now more prone to vote based on looks rather than substance, then throw them a bone. Give them youth, leadership, looks and NO WHITE MALES!! How could the GOP be branded as a racist, sexist, old man's party ever again?

When elected, the new President along with Republicans in congress would then roll out their agenda for a conservative resurgence.  Having dodged such issues as Supreme Court appointments, lowering taxes and spending, fixing the economy, protecting our country from terrorist attacks and restoring traditional values through example rather than eliminating values through legislation and litigation, the GOP leadership just talks about it new look and feel and prove (at least outwardly) it truly means CHANGE.  It won't be "Change You Can Believe In" (to quote the Obama campaign), but "Change You Can Actually See."  Remember the old adage:  "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see"?  Well, at least you will "see" the change!  That's better than just plan old talk!

A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.

30 year old Bradley LeShawn Fowler, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.  Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said. He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.

Zondervan says that even if Fowler's claim is credible, he's suing the wrong party. A company spokesman told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that Zondervan doesn't translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations but relies, instead, on the "scholarly judgment of credible translation committees."

U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused Monday to appoint an attorney to represent Fowler in the Thomas Nelson case, saying the court "has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims."

Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, says in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."

So here we go...the gay agenda is suing publishers of Bibles and if only they could sue the original authors of the Bible (Moses, Paul, Matthew, et.al) or even the inspiration for the Bible (God), they still won't be happy.  On a recent episode of Breakpoint, Church Colson noted that "Fowler is suing the wrong party, but perhaps he realizes he is likely to have difficulty hauling the real author into court."

Colson calls what is now happening in the continuing saga of litigations by the gay community "Molly Coddling" and then tells us that "we ought to take such attacks on Christian teaching seriously: We are going to see many more of them if same-sex “marriage” is foisted upon us by the courts."

As Seana Sugrue explains in The Meaning of Marriage, marriage is a pre-political institution, rooted in biology and moral obligations. Sugrue writes, “The reality of sex differences between men and women, leading to the potential for offspring, is essential to the pre-political foundation of marriage.”

But marriage as a political form of social order, independent of the state, “is precisely what advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ seek to change,” according to Sugrue. “Marriage rooted in procreation and sexual differences is to be replaced by marriage for the gratification of two consenting adults.”

Yet Sugrue warns that unlike traditional marriage, “same-sex marriage requires a condition of soft despotism to exist.  In claiming for homosexuals the right to marry,” she reasons, the “state also claims for itself the ability to declare what constitutes marriage . . . It transforms marriage from a pre-political obligation into its own creation.”

But as an artificial creation of the state, same-sex “marriage” is “an institution that needs to be coddled . . . Its very fragility demands a culture in which it is protected.” This means, as Sugrue argues, that “once marriage becomes a statist institution for the sake of consenting adults, the state will increasingly be called upon to create the social conditions to protect these unions.”

The need for coddling means the state will use public education for this end, and align itself against churches that refuse to recognize same-sex “marriage.”  So, the state has to use its power against two of society’s civil institutions: the family and the church.

I think Sugrue is right: We are already seeing the courts go after institutions and people who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of same-sex “marriage” where it is imposed. State-ordered gay “marriage” is an attack, not only on legitimate marriage, but upon religious freedom and the freedom not to have one’s children indoctrinated into alien ideas about marriage.

We need to understand the reasoning here so that we can present this argument in a winsome way to our neighbors. And we better be supporting efforts to pass constitutional amendments and laws defining marriage as one man and one woman; the issue is up in Florida, Arizona, and California this year. We also need to find out what the presidential candidates want to do, because they will be choosing the next Supreme Court justices who will ultimately decide this issue.

If we do not act, lawsuits against Bible publishers will not any longer be a joke, but a despotic reality. Of course, lawsuits against churches and pastors will become a reality and Christianity may well be headed for the underground.

It is not is not the purpose of this blog to give sermons, exegete Scripture or to do a Bible Study.  However, in light of the many social changes taking place in our civilization, e.g. Redefining marriage, pedophilia, polygamy, and incestuous relationships, I feel compelled to point out what is taking place in our society today in light of what the Bible says.

There are many social issues beyond the subject of same-sex marriage which prove that our culture is in decline.  Among these are the decaying of our ecological system, the forced recognition of other cultures on America rather than mandating the recognition of our culture on those who would move into our country.  Then, there is the secularization of our culture with more emphasis on human accomplishments and government intervention to aid in the lives of special interest groups.  There is also the legislation of protecting a minority "class" (notice I didn't say "race").  Finally, there are the many cases of litigation against businesses and persons who, desiring to practice their religious beliefs, are forced to keep their religion to themselves and provide services to those these "protected classes."  The so-called "protected classes" infringe on a person's conscientious objections and superimpose their base desires on society at large.  AS an example, I merely cite the case of Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco having to end their adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient. 

I believe this and other infringements on religious liberties can be explained from a cursory reading of Paul's letter to the Romans, found in the New Testament.  Let me quote from chapter 1, verses 18-32.  Please pay close attention to the bold print and the three items underlined within this text.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For 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.

 21For 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. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

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

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.

 28Furthermore, 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. 29They 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, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although 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.

Within the bold print did you notice that this seems to describe our time?  Our culture?  Our society?  Hoping to keep this article brief, I would be wrong not pointing out God's three-fold relinquishment of humanity found in verses 24, 26, 28. 

First, God gives those who reject  Him over to the desires of the heart.  When God is said to "give over" it denotes a deliberate act of resigning control over what is passed on.  This basically means that if you want to do your own thing, He won't stop you.  The result is the heart will turn away from what is right to what is thought to be the best.  The right is not always what we think is best.  In the Bible, the heart is picturesquely the seat of the emotions.  Put in today's context God is handing this culture over to the freedom from Him for which it yearns.  The desire to be independent of God in achieving its end shows itself to be nothing higher than the desire for degrading impurity.  Society, then, is emotionally wrapped up in doing its own thing!

Second, God gives those who want to believe a lie and serve creation instead of the Creator over to shameful passions.  How does one "serve" or "worship" the creation?  Are we talking about Animism?  Pantheism? Panentheism?  Not necessarily.  Included in the creation are items like sexuality, business, pleasures, even the government.  In America today, there is a craving for government solutions to everything from poverty to the right to privacy; from civil rights to protection from God (i.e. religion).  So, we see people who would rather government enact laws to protect them from religion (read religious bigotry) and this becomes a passion!  It is interesting that in light of this Bible passage, Paul goes beyond the general things like pleasures into specifics like homosexuality.  Today's society is finally coming to grips with the demands of the gay community to be  "acknowledged as a special class," to be "protected," and to be given special privileges and civil rights which heretofore throughout all of human history has been within the purview of one man and one woman - marriage.  To have one's passions degraded and become shameful brings on a God-forsaken character.  And when character is compromised, society is on the brink of disaster.

Third, God gives those who seek after their own passions over to a depraved mind.  Here and for the last time, Paul emphasizes the direct link between humankind's rejection of God and its disordered state.  When a man's mind becomes "depraved," it means that man has now been set free from God!  Psychologists and Psychiatrists are always intrigued by the power of the mind.  As a Licensed Professional Counselor and one who has many graduate hours in psychology, I can truly state with measured certainty that "when the mind goes, so goes the character." 

The character of American society is a never ending downward spiral toward the state of depravity.  Mankind may have by and large come to the place in which it sees no room for God in the world - that God doesn't exist, or worse, that God is irrelevant.  Well, according to the Roman letter we've been considering, this truly typifies depravity at its worse.  Three times Paul says "God handed them over" and this underscores the point that in striking free of God's immediate control, mankind has not escaped God's overall ordering of His creation.  The simple fact is that man cannot escape his own nature and the nature of the world as God made it.  It is God Who has handed our society over to its desires and the endless pursuit of its satisfaction.

Just remember man's "freedom" to go his own way still leaves him within the limits set by God, whether he rejects God as real or simply tries to ignore Him.

I offer these thoughts since I am free (right now) to speak out on the decline of our society and the ending of the traditional values under which we once lived.  In a few years, I might not be able to say these things without repercussions.  Since the freedom to practice religion is under threats today, I do foresee many lawsuits coming for those who preach from passages like these.  The end result of a depraved civilization (in this case) is that Civil rights will prevail over Constitutional rights (like the First Amendment) as redefined by a depraved court.

In my next blog, I will list some of the most recent actions against religious organization by gay (special interest) groups that show just how close we are to having religion banned from our society.

Recently, an African-American friend of mine noted that in order for him to have "respect" in his community, come November, he must be able to walk out of the voting booth saying proudly that he voted for Barack Obama.  I asked him if he had, at any time in the past, ever voted for a Republican candidate for President.  (He has been voting since 1976.)  He told me he didn't think so and did remark that when he told some of his black neighbors back in '84 that he was thinking about voting for Reagan, he was branded "An Oreo Cookie" and a traitor to his race.

For those of you readers who don't know what an "Oreo Cookie" is in the African-American community that is a person who is "black on the outside and white on the inside."  During this presidential election year you will hear a lot about those few black republicans being traitors to their race and Oreos.  Michael Steele, the former Lt. Governor of Maryland, who is also black, is a conservative republican and currently the Chairman of GOPAC.  He has been branded a "black Rush Limbaugh" by Bob Novak in Human Events and "a betrayer of all that Martin Luther King, Jr and the civil rights movement stood for" by the Huffington Post.  Yet, he remains firm on the true conservative principles that set him apart from Obama and his Democratic ilk.  Steele, along with other black conservatives like Tom Sowell and Larry Elder and conservative politicians like Alan Keyes, jurists like Clarence Thomas and Presidential Advisors like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have been attacked by those of their own race as turncoats, defectors, betrayers and Oreos.

Why?  Because Michael Steele and his fellow African-American conservatives realize that the Democrat Party doesn't really care for the plight of the black community.  A little bit of history will illustrate this.

First, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 to abolish slavery.  Slavery was primarily and institution of the Democratic Party.  After all, following the civil war, Democrats were involved in the founding of the Ku Klux Klan. 

The poll tax, which was enacted in southern states from 1889 to 1910, was a Democratic institution.  Because payment of the tax was a prerequisite for voting, it disenfranchised many blacks and poor whites who couldn't afford to pay it.

Democrats instituted Jim Crow laws (laws which imposed racial segregation on blacks) throughout the South.

When black and white student activists made "Freedom Rides" on Greyhound buses through the South in the spring of 1961, Alabama police departments refused to protect them from the KKK and angry white mobs.  Many freedom riders were beaten and harassed at bus terminals - including the one in Birmingham, Alabama where Police Chief "Bull" Connor arrested everyone on the bus for violating segregation laws.  Chief Connor was a Democrat.

Democrats were the original segregationists who opposed desegregation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (including Senator William Fulbright who Bill Clinton awarded the Medal of Honor and Senator Al Gore, Sr., who vehemently opposed equal rights for blacks).  If not for the support of white Northern Republicans, former President Lyndon B. Johnson would have not been able to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  It should be noted here that Martin Luther King, Jr. supported and endorsed Republican candidates - not Democrats - for Congress in the south.

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia was a Kleagle in the KKK and used the term "white n----r" twice in a TV interview with Tony Snow on a March 4, 2001 broadcast of Fox News Sunday.

Now the question is: Why have we seen over 92% of the African-American vote (since 1964) going to the Democrats?  Although better than 9 in 10 blacks vote Democratic, it is interesting to note the a Pew Research Center poll taken in 2006 found that 75 percent of black Americans believe "liberals" push too far to keep prayers and religion out of the public schools and government and only 17 percent of African Americans want to legalize gay marriage (these are liberal Democratic positions!  Now, this is an overwhelming statement of traditionalist convictions.  Martin Luther King, Jr. was a traditionalist.  In almost every public statement he made, he called upon God to inspire him and deliver justice.  Bill Cosby is also a traditionalist.  He travels the country urging black Americans to return to the American traditions of self-discipline, self-reliance, and self-respect.

Cosby, like Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell and other black Americans, understand that moral relativism is not helping blacks overcome their historical disadvantages.  The key to success, according to Cosby, is a strong traditional education and hard work.

Yet the Democratic Party wants the black community to be satisfied with decaying schools, an educational public school systems which has turned into more of a baby-sitting service that an enterprise for learning and mental growth.  They want the black community to think that the government in general, and those more advantaged in particular, "owes" them for past offenses and current disadvantages.  The Democrats prefer blacks to be "enslaved."  This slavery can no longer be to the White Devil Slave Masters of the past, but to the "system," i.e. the government which doles out entitlements like its candy and tells them to "remember on election day who helped you with these handouts."  In the world of psychology, we call this "brain washing."

Now lest you think I am accusing blacks of being brain-washed, let me quote Bill Cosby in a speech he gave in October, 2006 to the NEA.  "Black people today don't want to take care of themselves or their children, black men don't want to be responsible for parenthood, black women don't want to be free to pursue happiness and self-respect.  We have bred a generation of men and women who think that it is up to someone else to take care of them and their needs.  When will these young men and young women take on personal responsibility and get their self-respect?"

We have read and heard in the media, from commentators and pundits alike, that Bill Cosby is "an Oreo."  To me, he is a thinker who upholds traditional values and believes that the government cannot be held responsible for absent fathers, babies having babies, black on black violence, rap music advocating stealing guns, f---ing hos and crazy bit--es, and doling out welfare and food coupons as a way of saying "here is what is owed to you."  What this country owes to the African-American community is the freedom to pursue a life without government interference and with dignity and pride.  It is a right to self-reliance.  The conservative ideology (and to a great extent the Republican Party) guarantees blacks and all races these freedoms.  The liberal ideology (and the Democratic Party almost as a whole) makes no guarantee except a life in the projects, a little bit of money each month and a failed education system which will never assure anyone that he or she will be smart enough to fill out a job application, much less read and write.

In this election year, to those of the African-Americans community who find it hard to vote for Republican John McCain I would only suggest voting for Alan Keyes, who will likely run as an independent.  He is an African-American who understands what being free truly means.

Recently I was asked what I considered to be the hallmarks of a social-economic and political conservative.  Today I decided to codify my so-called Conservative Identity Factors listing ten items to which any S-E-P Conservative should subscribe.  I print them here for your perusal:

1 - Limited Federal Government (in size and responsibilities).  With a limited federal government lower taxes and lower spending resulting in fiscal responsibility would become the rule and not the goal; 
2 - Personal Responsibility - self-reliance instead of governmental solutions to problems;
3 - Strong Defense and Homeland Security (that results in a staunch opposition to terrorism, communism and all forms of tyranny);
4 - Free Markets, Competitive Capitalism and Advancing Private Enterprise (this includes opposing capital gains and high corporate taxation that would be passed on to consumers - freedom to maintain private control of economic power and that government not compete with capitalism);
5 - Traditional Values - as espoused by our Founding Fathers (not just Evangelical Christian values only);
6 - Individual Liberties as based on the Bill of Rights;
7 - Elimination or Radical Modification of Entitlement Programs which call for Affirmative Action and Preferential Treatment advancing a quota system (this does not include the elimination of programs which assist the elderly and handicapped, but does include finding ways to Privatize Social Security and Medicare);
8 - Shifting the Control of and major funding to Education, Transportation, Housing, Urban Development and Human Services to the states.  The Federal Government would render little or no interference in the operation of those programs;
9 - State's Rights - That division of powers granted in the Constitution is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal Government;
10 - Little or no preemptive use of the military or military aggression without due cause.

So far in the 2008 political races around the country, there is only candidate for the House of Representatives - Ron Paul of Texas, not one candidate for the U.S. Senate and only the Constitution Party's candidate for President - Chuck Baldwin - who would adhere to all 10 of these Factors!  Are we ready for a new political party?  Maybe.  Can we rehabilitate the Republican Party to a basic return to the Goldwater-Reagan doctrine of true conservatism which once prevailed in the late 70's, 80's and 90's?  Not likely!

For now, I guess the best solution is to solicit men and women which closely align themselves to most or all of these factors, motivate them to run for office and push for their election.  This would be the real meaning of "Change" in the political arena.

In our current presidential contest, John McCain would hold fast to the second through sixth principles with a slight bow to the first and ninth.  Barack Obama would possibly support only the last of these factors.  So, I guess, we have a "somewhat" conservative candidate in McCain and a very liberal candidate in Obama.

In the days to come, I intend to write about a series of concerns that would effect our entire traditional values and the culture as we know it.  To me, the hottest issue outside of the economic downfall and the Iraq War, is the sweeping social changes which are taking place in the United States.  In particular, I refer to legalization of Same-Sex Marriages in California (and before that Massachusetts).  On July 15th, the Massachusetts legislature approved a measure that would overturn a ban which prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn't legally wed in their home states.  That being said, if approved, Massachusetts would join California in allowing non-residents to obtain marriage licenses and having their marriages solemnized. 

The first question which comes to mind is this...Why would any gay couple travel from their home states to either Massachusetts or California to get married, only to return to their homes and not have it recognized?  Obviously this would not make sense.  So there must be an agenda brewing and that agenda is nothing other than having those "married" gay-activitsts return home and start the litigation process.

A gay couple I know went to California during the last week in June to get married.  They have lived together for nearly fifteen years.  Before they left, this couple contacted a couple of law firms to see what their status would be went they came back to Virginia.  Of course, their marriage would not be recognized in the Commonwealth.  Being somewhat wealthy and very much moving in the "activist mold," this couple has moved to put one of the largest law firms in the Norfolk, Va area on retainer with a view of challenging the anti-same sex marriage amendment to Virginia's Constitution.  If pursued, litigation papers would be filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia District in Norfolk where, no doubt, Judge Raymond Jackson would be itching to hear the case.  Should Chief Judge James Spencer give Jackson the nod, we would see one of the most liberal Clinton appointees to any federal bench rule on the case.  The total number of liberals in that District Court is equal to the number of conservatives.  There is little doubt that regardless of what decision is handed down, the case will be appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA.  Quite possibly, within a year of that court's decision and appeal will be forwarded to SCOTUS.  By the time it gets to the Supreme Court, Barack Obama will have already appointed at least one extreme liberal to that bench - possibly two.

Obama is on record as saying his idea of a great justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  In her twelve years on the bench she has as yet (in 328 so-called "ideological" cases) to vote on one social issue with the conservatives, making her the only one on the bench to have never done that - NOT ONCE!  Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter have a couple of conservative opinions during that time, and Justice John Paul Stevens has been known, on rare occasions, to rule on the conservative side.  Obama loves Ginsburg and thinks she has a full hold on the Constitution as a "living document."  Obama, in a November 11th interview with George Stephanopoulos said that there is no greater Hegelian mind on the court than Ginsburg.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, he was the German philosopher who propagated the dialectical method which stated that movement, or process, or progress, is the result of the conflict of opposites. Traditionally, this dimension of Hegel's thought has been analyzed in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

To understand this, let's consider the recent decision by SCOTUS to strike down Washington D. C.'s gun ban.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a separate concurring opinion to the one offered by John Paul Stevens merely added that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated.  That there are no militias and only militias were entitled to keep and bear arms.  That it didn't matter what was in the minds of the original authors of that Amendment, "today's society with its needs, and mandates, require this antiquated portion of the Constitution to be ignored and leave to the states and localities the rights to make laws banning the sale, ownership and use of any arms."  Notice she says, two hundred and fifteen years ago, the passing of the 2nd Amendment was the thesis, gun ban laws of today is the antithesis and she would say the synthesis is ignoring or abolishing the 2nd Amendment altogether.  Isn't it interesting that this ardent opponent of states rights all of a sudden embraces states rights when it comes to bans on arms.

I have no doubt Obama will use Ginsburg as his model for Supreme Court Nominees and I would not be surprised, given Obama's previous stance on gun control, that he will use this recent 5 to 4 decision as a litmus test, just as Conservative Presidents once used Roe V Wade as their litmus.

O K, back to the real issue at hand,...will a more liberal SCOTUS overturn 31 state constitutional amendments, DOMA and a host of other state laws in the name of equal rights and protections for Gays?  You bet ya.  Now what will that mean for religion in general and Judeo-Christianity in particular?  I have no doubt that activist gays, once they have successfully overturned the states to have their marriages recognized and to force states to issue gender-neutral licenses, will not stop just at the clerk's office  and the court's steps.  They will want nice places for their nuptials, like churches and synagogues.  Ah, but there is freedom of religion, right?  Not so fast friend,...remember, Hegelian Dialectic would come into play again when SCOTUS hears the next suit affecting marriage and the churches.  The thesis is that government cannot intrude on the free exercise of religion, even the use of church-owned facilities.  The Antithesis is "all marriages are 'spiritual journeys' and should be accorded the use of religion's (i.e. church's) facilities.  With an Obama Court (Ginsburg being the model) what do you think the Synthesis will be?  Easy answer, that today's society must be protected from religion (not religion protected from the government).  Therefore, religion has no right to speak-out against homosexuality, its practices and its desire for marriage recognition; and failing to allow for the use of the church's buildings will be interpreted as discrimination.  Any oral or written statements to the contrary will be interpreted as a "hate-crime."

Now, let me return to the gay couple recently married in California, I believe that during the next year, their attorneys will be spending an enormous amount of prep time as they gear up for this big challenge.  By 2013 or 2014, and after at least two appeals, SCOTUS will have rendered its decision.  This will have taken about six years.  Add six more years for litigation against churches and synagogues then by 2020 there will be absolutely no more "Freedom OF Religion," rather there will be "Freedom FROM Religion."

Consider this fact:  I personally know of another gay couple who want a Virginia wedding license and a church wedding.  A conservative Baptist Church down the road from where they live has a very nice sanctuary and fellowship hall they say they would one day like to utilize but the church's conservative stance will prohibit them from using their facilities.  They are talking about suing under the banner of civil-rights violations and using the new anti-hate crimes laws which now protects gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered persons as a special class entitled to civil-rights.  If they, or any other couple is serious about this, it appears that churches  will be sued and under a GINSBERG MODEL majority SCOTUS, will be forced to allow their facilities to be used for gay marriages.  Failing to follow the rule of law will, most definitely, result in the church's loss of their 501 (c) 3 status and any contributions made to the churches will not be tax-deductable.  Tack on the huge attorney and court fees and you will have the dissolution of many places of worship. 

It won't stop there.  Since there will be no more freedom to practice religion, rather only freedom FROM religion, pastors and clergymen and women will be forced to perform such nuptials or face fines, jail time or worse.  Since I live and am a clergyman in Virginia, let me use my state as an example of what I am saying.  In the Circuit Courts of Virginia, I am "bonded" to perform marriage ceremonies which the state acknowledges to be legal.  In the event the amendment to Virginia's constitution is overturned, in order for me to perform ceremonies which the state sanctions, I would no longer be allowed to use "discretion."  Say, as the liberals have argued in California, gay marriages fall under the same category as interracial marriages, if I say, or if it is proved that I have performed a single interracial marriage (which I have), then I cannot use the "discretion" argument to deny performing a same-sex marriage.  Moses married a black woman so I have no problem with interracial marriages - in fact, there is Biblical precedent.  But when America is "FREED FROM religion, the Bible will have no relevance in arguments and use of discretion and practice of my religious beliefs will be ruled an infringement on the civil rights of a protected class.

One final thought should be given here:  The anti-hate crimes bill which was sponsored by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry was co-signed by Barack Obama.  This bill puts GLBT in the category of "protected" classes and subject to special acknowledgment under Civil Rights laws.  The real danger is not me being forced to perform same sex marriages as I still retain the right to no-longer perform marriages - period.  The problem is what I will and what I will not be allowed to preach from the pulpit.  I cannot endorse candidates for public offices from the pulpit, even though most African-American pastors I know allow the NAACP to come in and endorse Democratic candidates all the time.  So, quite possibly, I may be forbidden to preach that homosexuality, like adultery, incest, bestiality, etc. is a sin.

In the weeks to come I will have more to say concerning this hot-button issue.  This, after all, is a matter of faith and government.  Hence, the title of this blog.