Radical Left Winning?

Following are three news stories that show the persistence of the radical left in their effort to destroy this Constitutional Republic. Are they succeeding?

Mass. Gay Nups Change Rejected
Wednesday, September 14, 2005

BOSTON — The Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions, a year after the state performed the nation's first government-sanctioned same-sex weddings.

It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure, which was intended to be put before voters on a statewide ballot in 2006. Under state law, lawmakers were required to approve it in two consecutive sessions before it could move forward.

After less than two hours of debate Wednesday, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure.

It was a striking departure from a year earlier, when hundreds of protesters converged on Beacon Hill and sharply divided legislators spent long hours debating the issue. In that session, in March 2004, lawmakers voted 105-92 in favor of the amendment.

This year, the crowds were tamer and some legislators who had initially supported the proposed change to the state constitution said they no longer felt right about denying the right of marriage to thousands of same-sex couples.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169360,00.html


California Legislature Approves Gay Marriage
Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Calif. Court Upholds Gay Parents' Rights
SACRAMENTO, Calif — Gay rights supporters cheered loudly from the gallery as California lawmakers became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages. But their celebration may be short-lived.

The legislation could be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has expressed an acceptance of gay marriages but said it's an issue that should be decided by voters or the courts.

"He will uphold whatever the court decides," spokeswoman Margita Thompson said Tuesday after the state Assembly approved the same-sex marriage measure, 41-35. The Senate had approved it last week.

A state appellate court is considering appeals of a lower court ruling that overturned California laws banning recognition of gay marriages. And opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to qualify initiatives for the 2006 ballot that would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriages.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168643,00.html

Federal Judge Rules Reciting Pledge in Schools Unconstitutional
Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Federal Court Lets Pledge Ban Stand
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The judge has granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169379,00.html

 

Seeking Truth.

Sadly I tend to agree with you. Hopefully the apointment of Roberts and another conservative to the Supreme Court may be able to reverse things. Frankly I am hopeful and prayerful that God will remove a liberal Justice from the court and give Bush a chance to appoint 3 Justices. It is essential that the Republicans maintain control of the Senate in 2006.

I am waiting for our resident prophet[ess] to jump in on this one. Where are you LE?

 

If you were Poles I would say the altitude had gotten to you. I would be interested in your definition of liberalism. I will post my definition of conervatism as follows:

The following article by columnist Holmes Alexander was published 30 or more years ago. It presents the best definition of true Conservative philosophy that I have read. It is appropriate for all who are confused about what constitutes the true Conservative philosophy.

OldRegular

‘The Bobbs-Merrill Company, book publishers of the American Heritage Series, have acted better late than never in recognizing the conservative movement that has been booming along for nearly two decades now. The Heritage Series has previously put out books on the New Left and Black Nationalism, agrarian revolt and civil disobedience, literary radicalism and the libertarian theory, and now "belatedly," as the editors admit, they have made William Buckley the collector and commentator of an anthology called "Did You Ever See a Dream Walking” which gives excerpts from the writings of 25 conservative authors.

As might be expected, the best passages in the volume are those written by Bill Buckley himself. You won't find here any thumbnail definition of conservatism, but will be shown samples of what it is, and be warned away from what it is not. The samplings show that conservatism, among much else, is a form of non violent dissent against — well, materialism, statism, godlessness, immorality.

Conservatism has a lot to do with free enterprise, little to do with Big Business. Conservatism is a discipline, and thus the enemy of permissiveness It is law-and-order, but not repression. It is good manners and social responsibility, but it has few rules — stops short of maudlin pity for the poor and the minorities. It regards Communism as an unmitigated evil, calls Fascism its “illegitimate” brother, and treats Socialism as an obnoxious poor relation of both.

Conservatism is individualism, which is to say, personal freedom. The basic freedom, as Gary Wills writes in this book, is that of the human will. It cannot be killed unless the man himself is killed or reduced to a sub-human condition, as has been done in both ancient and modern times by tyrannous states.

But the individual has an obligation to use his freedom. never to abuse it, as some of our demonstrators of today have abused and debased the freedom of speech.

The ideal state, says the conservative, is one which recognizes that freedom is not given to anybody by his government, but is protected by the laws of the land, as well as by the policeman on the corner. The state, as the conservative sees it, ought to be the servant and the convenience of the free citizen.

The state is not even a leader, or should not be because it always fails in such efforts except in time of war. Dr. Milton Friedman. for example, points out that when the government sets out to help the poor by passing minimum wage laws, it ends up creating unemployment. The welfare laws have merely perpetuated the poverty and idleness of the supposed beneficiaries. While no conservative could be an anarchist, he would eternally be for a government that is as unobtrusive as possible.

A good many conservatives — two or three in this volume — came to their present beliefs by way of Communism, the god that failed them. Not all of them embraced the Christian religion by way of reaction. As Buckley notes, it is possible for a conservative to disbelieve in a personal God, but it is impossible for a conservative to despise God. The surest synonym, — if there is any — for conservatism is morality. A man cannot be a materialist, or an egocentric, or utterly ruthless, or rudely arrogant and still qualify as a conservative.

Thus in a famous review of "Atlas Shrugged” Whittaker Chambers, then associate editor of the National Review, read Miss Ayn Rand, the author, completely out of the conservative movement. "Out of a lifetime of reading," Chambers wrote, "I can recall no other book in which the tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained." And the National Review itself publicly excommunicated Robert Welch first because the editors found his conspiratorial theories to be unsound, and second because to keep silent about Mr. Welch under the circumstances might seem to give consent to his unsound ideas.

I said that conservatism is a dissent, and you will find in this book that it is a dissent against ideas and persons that attempt to enslave the individual.’

I would not say that George Bush best represents all the ideals above but he sure beats democrats FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton and Republicans Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush 1.

 

I agree that if God judges the United States we Christins will be okay, but that is okay only in eternity. We will still suffer in this life along with every one else in the country, perhaps more than most, because we like the Christians in early Rome may be blamed for what comes.

That being said it is my belief that the Book of Revelation is written, not to tell a 7 year history of the Jews prior to the second Coming, but to show the "true believer" that in the end, after all that Satan and the world can do to us, we will emerge the victors.

 

I have looked recently but can't find the source but I have read that there have been more Christians martyred in the 20th Century than the previous 19 together. If someone out there has seen this info would appreciate the source.