LDS Church Fights Gay Marriage in California

As this is primarily a political, and not religious blog, I hesitate to discuss items of a religous nature. Many of you know that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). On June 24th, the AP reported that the LDS church has issued a letter to its California Bishops to be read during church services on Sunday.

The letter addresses the recent debacle perpetrated by the California Supreme court in which the seven justices overturned "Proposition 22". Proposition 22 was an act that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It was voted on in the 2000 election and passed with a 61.4% majority which is a staggering victory considering the conservative reputation that California holds. However, why bother with elections when we have the all-wise supreme court to make our policy decisions for us.

Now, an attempt to ammend the California state constitution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, has been placed on the November ballot for the people to vote on. The LDS church has asked its membership in California to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating your means and time".

As a Latter-day Saint, this letter is significant in a number of ways. First, it absolutely ends the debate as to the churches position regarding gay marriage. Many members of the LDS church still think that the churches position on homosexuality is akin to its position on Blacks and the Priesthood pre-1978. This position is ludicrous in that the Church never stated that being black was a sin, nor did they posit that blacks would never be able to recieve the priesthood. On the other hand, the churches position on homosexuality has never wavered nor offered any inclination that the position as to the sinful nature of homosexuality would ever change.

Despite this there are members of the LDS church who feel that the church's policies (i.e. homosexuality is a sin) are "hurtful" to homosexuals. How is that exactly? Anyone who belives that the LDS church is true, must also believe their claim that the church is divinely led. If that is the case, then no amount of whining is going to change the "hurtful" policy. Do they think that they can change God's mind? On the other hand, if they don't belive that the LDS church is true, then what does our opinion matter anyway?

Regarding the issue of Gay marriage, we have to ask ourselves this question. Why? Why is it necessary for homosexuals to have a state recognized marriage? I'll tell you, it is because they know that their actions are unnatural and wrong, and they are desperately looking for government approval. If they can get the US government to say that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality, that a homosexual marriage is just a moral as a heterosexual one, then they feel that they will be justified on their actions. This goes beyond tolerance. This is an attempt to change the very definitions of "right" and "wrong".

If the Gay Rights people are successful in keeping gay marriage legal, then it will only be a matter of time before churches are sued left and right because they "discriminate" against homosexuals. You may think its a stretch, but the Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, was almost forced to hire homosexuals as scoutmasters. If the court can force the BSA to do it, why not the LDS or Catholic church?

I applaud the LDS church for taking a clear cut position on this issue.

A vote to start drilling offshore

Rep. Peterson: Congress needs to wake-up and Increase Domestic Energy Production

June 17, 2008 - 11:28 ET

Congressman John E. Peterson is a Republican from Pennsylvania.

For 27 years, Congress and the last three Presidents have imposed ridiculous restrictions on offshore production of oil and natural gas - making America the only country in the world that does not harvest its offshore energy resources.

While some in Congress like to point the finger at OPEC and 'Big Oil' for the price at the pump - the reality is, the buck stops at the front steps of Capitol and the White House.

With our Canadian friends to the north drilling off the coasts of Maine and Washington, and our not-so-close-friend Cuba drilling 60 miles off the coast of Florida, America remains the laughing stock of the world when it comes to energy production.

Our deep-ocean resources belong to every American citizen, and rightly so.

This Wednesday, June 18, members of the House Appropriations Committee will have an opportunity to lift the Congressional Moratorium on offshore oil and natural gas production. I plan to offer an amendment to the Interior Department spending bill that will modify the ban and allow for environmentally responsible exploration and production to begin 50-200 miles off our coast - leaving the first 50 miles of coastline under moratoria.

Take a look at the column I penned for the New York Post for a complete picture of the national energy crisis:

AMERICA is in an energy crisis - not because of OPEC, but thanks to the policies of Congress and the last three presidents.

Since 1982, Congress has passed laws banning the production of oil and natural gas on our Outer Continental Shelf; the last three presidents went along. But the US Minerals Management Service estimates (conservatively) that the OCS holds 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - the equivalent of 35 years of imported oil from OPEC and an 18-year supply of natural gas.

The United States is the only country in the world that prohibits exploitation of such offshore resources.

A recent Gallup poll found that nearly 60 percent of Americans support increased production of offshore oil and natural gas - but Congress has yet to get that message.

Access to our own energy shouldn't be a partisan issue. Yet last week, when I tried in a House committee to start opening up our vast offshore reserves, I lost on a party-line vote. Nine Democrats on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee voted against the measure; six Republicans backed it.

I'll offer the same amendment when the full committee meets, and again on the House floor, in the weeks ahead. I want every member of Congress on record on the issue.

High energy prices are draining our wallets at an alarming rate. By pushing US companies overseas, where energy costs are lower, they also threaten our jobs.

Make no mistake, this mess is the result of Washington's foolish policy of restricting domestic energy production and discouraging investment in it.

All too often, Washington's energy debate revolves around the notion that support for increased domestic production of oil and natural gas means opposing renewable energy, conservation and sound environmental policy.

In fact, these shouldn't be competing priorities, but complimentary ones: America must produce more, conserve more and invest more in renewables.

For this country to remain a world leader in the global economy, Congress must develop a national energy policy that considers all means - including increased domestic production of oil and natural gas, on and offshore.

America depends on fossil fuels for 86 percent of our energy needs; wind, solar and geothermal power cover less than 1 percent. Renewable energy won't be available in sufficient quantity and at affordable prices for decades - so we have no other choice than to produce more of our own oil and natural gas - or further increase our dependence upon foreign sources.

And producing our own energy will create tens of thousands of jobs - and bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties. That cash can be dedicated to renewable fuels R&D, carbon sequestration and environmental cleanup of our waters - as well as programs such as weatherization and energy assistance for those most in need. Billions more would go to the coastal states for their own use and to the US Treasury.

Gasoline prices now average over $4 a gallon; natural gas is trading at nearly double last year's price. The time for Congress to act is now.
Solving our energy crisis should be the No. 1 priority of Congress and the present and future occupant of the White House. As of today, it is not."

In order for this country to remain competitive, compete in the global economy, ease the bleeding of American jobs, and bring American energy to the market, Congress must act - now.

I encourage all those who read this newsletter to call your Congressman and Senator and demand that they support legislation that increases domestic production of American energy - not increased dependence on unstable foreign nations.

With your help, America can reduce its dependence on OPEC oil, and embark on a road to energy security with American resources.

Congressman John E. Peterson is a Republican from Pennsylvania.

A guest on the Rush Limbaugh program....almost.

Hopefully now that the MCAT and medical school applications are behind me, I will be able to post more often than once a month. Much love for you all, my loyal readers. My hat is off to all six of you. Really, you are the reason I do this. I really do love your comments, and if something I say inspires, angers, or just bores you, please post on the site so others can read it and glean from your vast sources of freedom.

Big news, I was working in my lab crunching some numbers and listening to Rush, and I thought I would try calling in. Lo and behold, I hit it on the first try. Though they had me on hold for a couple of hours. Still I got a chance to voice my opinion on the grand EIB network.

Here is the exerpt from the transcript

"

A Referendum on Barack Obama

June 17, 2008

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now! BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Chris in Provo, Utah, you're next, and welcome to the program. CALLER: Hey, Rush, how are you doing today? RUSH: Just fine, sir. CALLER: I wanted to talk -- you know, I agree 100% with everything that you've been talking about with respect to Obama and the danger that he poses for conservatives. But I'm not really 100% convinced that the bigger danger doesn't lie with McCain. Not so much that I support Obama in favor of McCain, but that... Well, let me explain. You know, the Republican establishment -- not the base, but the establishment -- they're moving left. They're moving towards the left and this is just another symptom of the fact that they pushed McCain on us. They're moving in this direction because they have the conservative vote; they know they have the conservative vote. So in order to keep their jobs, in order to consolidate their power, they're wanting to attract voters -- more moderate, more left voters -- and my fear is that if McCain wins this election, McCain will win, and the establishment will know forever that they do not need to appeal to conservatives any longer. Conservatives will be less down the lurch. They'll know that they have the conservative vote. They know the conservatives will vote with them no matter what. RUSH: Yes. This is -- CALLER: We'll never get a conservative elected into office. RUSH: Ohhhh, yes, we will. This is the Limbaugh Echo Syndrome. One of my warnings to people has been that if the Republicans win... Here's the other half of it. In addition to what you said, if things hold as they do now -- and, by the way, there are still many, many, many weeks to go. This is subject to change, because there's a lot of time for all kinds of wacko crazy things to happen, but if things hold as they're projected to now the Democrats are going to end up with a much bigger majority in both the House and the Senate. So no matter who the president is, the Democrats are going to be setting the agenda. If we elect McCain, we're already electing a guy who likes working with Democrats anyway. So that's a second prong of the problem. What you said is exactly right. The establishment country club blueblood Rockefeller types, after a McCain win, will come to all the conservatives -- and they've hated us. Not hated us; they've been embarrassed of us. They've been embarrassed of conservatives in the party because (Southern accent) a lot of us are from the South and a lot of us are pro-life." CALLER: (chuckling) RUSRH: "You know, a lot of us have pickup trucks and guns. It makes it tough to go to the Republican convention, with all the hicks showing up at the same time wanting to get into our parties. You know, we want to go to these black tie things. We want to have refined, sophisticated parties, canapés, Chablis and so forth -- and here come the Clampetts showing up looking at the ce-ment pond at the place we're having our party!" That's how they look at us, these country club blue-blood Republicans, and they do not like it. So they would be more than happy to be able to sweep to victory and say to the conservatives, "See? See? This party doesn't need conservatism to become a winning, broad-based coalition majority party," and they will be dead wrong, because they will have attracted people who are not Republicans to vote for them. The reason that these people will be attracted is because we've got a candidate that's more likable as a liberal than their candidate is. So what's going to happen is that the Republican Party is going to lose big in future elections unless there is a conservative vice presidential running mate for Senator McCain. It is a problem, but this is why I say, Chris, that this election is a referendum on Obama. This is going to be an up or down on Obama. It will be, for the vast majority of people voting here. And they're going to say, "Do I want this country led by Obama?" and as we're now beginning to learn, all of these old-time, time-honored dinosaur party hacks. Do we really want the Clinton administration back in power? Do we want somebody from Clinton administration running NSA? Do we want Jamie Gorelick back at the justice department? She created the wall that prevented us, our intelligence agencies from assuring information on terrorist activities overseas. Do we really want to bring friends of Algore back? Because that's what this is shaping up to be. Do we really want Obama with his friends like Jeremiah Wright and the whole circus that he runs around with? These are gonna be the questions that people vote on. The women that are upset that Hillary didn't get it, they're still going to be upset. So it's going to be a referendum on Obama, pure and simple. The sad thing is McCain has so many opportunities here to shore up the base. He took a step today by going all-in for oil exploration and drilling on the US continental shelf. There are many, many opportunities Senator McCain has here to really draw a distinction between himself and Obama. And he doesn't even have to, you know, cross the aisle and shake the hand of these conservatives that he doesn't like. The next thing is, if he would just peel off on this global warming carbon footprint thing, that would be a huge thing. You know, hang tough on low taxes, making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Hang tough. Stop talking about punishing the oil executives, all that sort of thing. It wouldn't take much and he could really, really draw some distinctions here that would not cause him to lose any independents that he so desperately wants.

END TRANSCRIPT Now that I read it I don't think that I articulated my point as well as I could have. You get a little nervous talking to the big man, and also he didn't really address my point, though he made a good one himself. The main problem that conservatives face is the republican party is steadily moving away from its conservative base, further and further left. The republican establishment, the "blue blood types" need to increase their voting base. They know that they have the conservative vote, that it isn't going anywhere, and that conservatives will vote for the worst republican candidate simply as the lesser of two evils. So, is the Republican establishment going to pander to the conservative base that is with them for the long haul, or are they going to "reach out" to the moderates and leftists. This is exactly why McCain got the nomination. They knew that he would appeal to the moderates, the swing voters, the democrats, and that the conservatives would vote for him just to keep Hillary or Obama out of office. So what is the problem with that? I am telling you all now that if McCain gets elected and wins the conservative vote, the Republican establishment will know that they can put any yahoo, no-talent hack in front of a podium and the conservatives will vote for him. This means that we can kiss our chance of getting a true conservative in office goodbye, because the Republican party establishment will never get behind a hard line conservative if they think that they can win with a middle of the road, moderate, maverick, and that is exactly what will happen if McCain wins. Mark my words, we will never see a conservative presidential candidate on the republican ticket if McCain wins this election. Rush did make a good point though. His point on how this election is a referendum for Obama is right on the money. People are not going to consider whether or not they want McCain, but whether or not they want Obama. That is exactly what makes this situation so bad for conservatives. Conservatives will vote McCain, just to keep Obama and his socialist agenda out of the White house. But what will we get? A "maverick" republican who is for shutting down Guantanamo, is for cap and trade, buys into the Global Warming nonsense, thinks that CEO salaries should be regulated by the government for crying out loud, and views big oil as wicked evil men, not to mention his "non-amnesty" amnesty legislation. The only thing that McCain has stood firm on is the Iraq war (which as I have said before, is of minimal importance when compared to domestic issues), and Bush Tax Cuts, but lets see how long he will last on those things once his buddies "across the aisle" start hammering him. One thing that can be said for Bush is that when Pelosi and Reid have come out swinging, he hasn't backed down. He has not let them push him around with their boneheaded socialist agendas. I really can't picture McCain holding his ground against a democratic senate. Once they put up a fight, McCain is going to fold like a deck of cards and give those folks whatever they want. To tell you the truth, I am not sure which is worse. Having a socialist president who will expand the government's powers so far that we will never see the end of it, or a weak-kneed liberal in disguise who will ignore his base in order to curry favor with the other side. I am almost at the point of saying that it is time for the conservatives to split with the republican party and let them fight over the scraps while we take the reins and move this country in the right direction

Read this.

This is from Ann Coulter's syndicated column. I have to confess that I got my idea from her.

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.

Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.

We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.

Bush's Legacy

I had a pretty interesting discussion with a British friend of mine the other day. It all started when I mentioned that Bush had done a pretty good job as president. My English friend was shocked and responded that Bush was "the worst president in American history" because he "lied to the American people".

I love this argument, mostly because the qualifier is that Bush "lied". I seem to remember another president who lied, I think it had something to do with an intern and a stained dress. However, when the conservatives were up in arms about Clinton's shameful discretions in the oval office, it was England who was asking us what the big deal was.

The "Bush lied" argument might actually be valid if those pesky historical facts getting in the way. Lets just think back to what happened.

Bush recieved "British" intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase enriched uranium from a country in Africa.

The UN sent multiple inspectors to Iraq to check for weapons of mass destruction, none of whom could enter the country until they were detained for a extended period of time. Despite this, the "experts" at the UN did not see sufficient evidence that WMD's existed. Bush didn't buy that, maybe he had knocked on his kid's door a couple of times and heard "Don't come in Dad!" Anyone with half a brain knows that something is fishy.

After giving Saddam multiple chances to comply with UN policies, Bush finally sent in the military (with the full support of congress). After only a few weeks, the Dictator and his rape rooms were sent packing.

"I explained to my Brittish friend my belief that any country has the right to preserve its own interests. My friend responded that that is a purely American sentiment, and that Europe does not feel that way.

I responded that he was lucky that the US was willing to defend not only itself but the other free countries of the world. If it was not for our "warmongering", everyone in Europe would be speaking German.

It is funny how Europe has no problem with our military might when we are saving their butts from bloodthirsty dictators, but when we try to do it in the Middle East, they stick their noses up at us."when we defeat another nation,

Lets not forget that every time that the US has defeated another nation, rather than make that nation a tributary, we have essentially handed them back the keys and helped them to rebuild. Germany and Japan are industrial powers now thanks to us. But, nobody is thanking us.

In 50 years Iraq will be a bastion of democracy in an otherwise bleak corner of the world. Though I seriously doubt that Bush will get any of the credit.