Friends,

Don’t be fooled by Barack Obama’s recent comments, appealing to us "religious right conservatives." Obama is no more pro-life than Dr. Tillman of Oklahoma. His track record is fanatical, supporting absolutely no exceptions for abortion, nor supporting any regulations.

Obama claims to support traditional marriage. Bull. He’s made statements supporting the California Supreme Court’s decision that forces gay "marriage" on the citizens of that state.

Obama thinks its OK to give Constitutional rights to our enemy combatants. He made statements supporting the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The people held in Gutanamo aren’t our next door neighbors, they are sworn enemies who reject the Geneva convention.

As I’ve written before, Obama is a great communicator. He has lots of "fluff" and little "substance." And what "substance" he has is way out of touch with most Americans. He’s proven to be more liberal than Hillary, and that takes a lot of effort.

No, I’m not real thrilled with John McCain. But at least he’s pro life. At least he supports limited government. At least he supports Constitutional judges. He supports the "Bush" tax cuts (if you think those only benefit the rich, just wait a few years when they expire.) and is calling for more domestic oil production.

So I urge you to at least further investigate Obama before deciding to support him. I think you’ll realize his "Change we can believe in" is really change we should oppose.

Friends,

It’s been a while. I have a few minutes to breathe and think about other things. So I’m taking a few minutes to post this.

Oh, no! Not a boycott of McDonalds! The all-American, apple-pie McDonalds? The home of every kid’s Happy Meal? What is the world coming to?

The better question is: What is happening to McDonalds? The family-friendly American institution is "going to hell." It’s join the liberal, anti-family, "gay rights" and "gay marriage" movements. I’m not quite sure why McDonalds would chose to spit in the face of one of its main sources of customers: families. But it has. All in the name of "diversity."

I’ve commented regularly about diversity and same-sex "marriage." Diversity and tolerance is not synonymous with immorality. We all have diverse cultural and racial backgrounds. That diversity can be appreciated. But to trash the standards of morality that keep our society together is another matter. Homosexuality is not about civil rights. It’s about morality. Homosexuality is defined by the practice of immoral and unnatural sexual behavior. Homosexual advocates will attack me as "homophobic" but I’m not afraid of, nor disrespectful to homosexuals. They have a right to practice their lifestyle (and must accept the consequences of that lifestyle). But, we, the majority of our society, have the right to reject homosexuality as immoral. We have the right to reject it as not normal. To be brief, homosexuality has not been proven to be an inherited or physical trait. More often, homosexuality has been shown to be a behavior pattern (habit? Lust of the flesh?) which can be changed, if a homosexual so desires.

I’m not saying that society should deny homosexuals any rights, but I don’t agree they should be given special rights and legal status based on their behavior. With the weight of McDonald’s now supporting the homosexual movement, this is another step toward homosexual activists’ goals of achieving homosexual "normalcy." I must disagree. Homosexuality should be practiced in private, not evangelized (which doesn’t make any sense if homosexuality is an inherent trait).

I must support this boycott because of McDonald’s apparent goal to legalize and normalize gay "marriage." Without going into details, I firmly believe that our society depends upon a strong family unit. A strong family unit depends upon a strong institution of marriage, which, by nature and history, is a committed relationship between a man and a woman. The legalization of gay "marriage" demoralizes traditional marriage, and establishes the relationship as legally "normal." It declares that our society believes children don’t need a loving father and mother (male and female). Sorry, but every social study on the issue supports the need for children to have both parental influences in their lives. When children don’t have both parents, they are socially handicapped, and have to work harder to overcome a less-than-ideal family environment. Obviously children can have positive lives in single-parent households. But the single parent must be dedicated and work harder to help make that happen.

I believe our society needs to return to the "Leave it to Beaver" family role model. I believe that we need strong fathers and loving mothers. Our children need this. If they don’t receive the love and nurturing they need at home, they will naturally seek it out in other, most likely negative, areas.

So that is why I will support the boycott on McDonalds, and urge you to do the same. As a father of three boys, sometimes I appreciate the McDonalds’ dollar menu and other deals. But for their sake, and the future of our society, I will endure the inconvenience and go elsewhere. Hope you join us. Together, we can make a difference. Proof? It worked on Ford.

Today’s Supreme Court decision should send shivers down the spines of each and every citizen who is concerned about the security of our country.

I find it ironic that these detainees have been given more rights as prisoners and enemy combatants than they have in their homelands.

I find it outrageous that these enemy combatants were given these rights when they don’t have the decency to obey the rules of war as laid out in the Geneva Convention. These combatants don’t qualify as POWs because of their conduct (murdering their POWs, using citizens as human shields, not fighting in uniform, etc.) and that they do not represent any nation. But they are willing to fight for their "legal rights" in a country that they desire to destroy.

My friend, liberal lawyers and activists have this warped idea that we can defend our country against terrorists while granting them rights as U.S. citizens (they are not). They want to allow them to freely make phone calls to plan attacks against the U.S. (Should they be forced to pay the long-distance charges?). Liberals seem willing to kiss the A** of those pledged to destroy our nation. This makes it even more impressive that the Bush Administration has been able to prevent further attacks on U.S. soil.

But the most outrageous part of this decision is that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted constitutional rights to non-citizens and our enemy combatants. Constitutional rights are for U.S. citizens.

There are more famous and more eloquent people who can express my opinion better than I do. Here’s the response from Gary Bauer of American Values:

Friends

In CT., the state legislative leaders and the governor (different parties) agreed to leave the state budget alone, due to current economic conditions. That meant that the state budget wasn’t increased, nor decreased.

The state senate Republicans believed it was possible to reduce the budget and got no where with their attempts to reduce spending and the state gas tax. They received no support from the governor. Who cares if gas goes above $4 a gallon. It’s only money.

At the same time, the budget wasn’t increased, either. That left interest groups sobbing, with their cupped hands still waiting to be filled. One of the first cry-babies receiving press is the large cities and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. They are crying that they aren’t getting enough state money and that local taxes may go up and local budgets will be hurt.

Whoa is me! The state budget already contains the largest increase in state aid to towns in state history, a $131.5 million increase. Plus the legislature will reconvene to renew the real estate transfer tax which goes (at least for now) directly to municipalities.

Nursing homes didn’t get their increase, nor did hospitals. Funding for a state-wide reading program was not renewed, either.

The governor’s spokesman said "It is clear government is having to do more with less, and that includes cities."

He forgot to mention us taxpayers. With the increase in gas, medical care, food, insurance, etc., we’re having to do more with less, as well. State and town governments; welcome to the club! I can’t remember the last time state spending wasn’t increased. This is a welcomed trend. Too bad it takes tough economic times for state government to tighten its belt.