DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL !

BettyJean Downing

First Amendment prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing a religious and therefore official marriage!

Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that eliminated same-sex couples’ right to marry, violates the U.S. constitution. In a 2-1 ruling, the court said the proposition “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

There is no Constitutional discussion regarding marriage rights in the United States. Without legal standing to deny anyone the benefit thereof marriages between loving, committed couples must be legally recognized.

Many are working for passage of the Respect for Marriage Act that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, depriving lesbian and gay couples of protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.

It seems pretty clear to me that there is no need for either act as there is nothing in the Constitution that deprives any citizen of their natural rights. Marriage between same sex couples or the prohibition thereof is strictly a religious debate and The Constitution has CLEARY stated the government shall make no laws regarding an official religion. That means the government has made laws regarding marriage as an official religious issue and even when it occurs in a civil ceremony where it is also obviously treated as an official religious marriage as well
!

The legal philosophy known as Declarationism seeks to incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of American case law on a level with the United States Constitution.

What we should have is a separation of marriages. In religious marriages, ceremonies and rules apply according to their own rules and rites. In civil ceremonies marriages are recognized by the civil society. BUT in the eyes of our government both must be treated the same to be in harmony with the Constitution and all citizens are entitled to the same benefits regardless of their religion, or ceremony as per the Constitutional and Human rights .

The establishment clause is “[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another.” Therefore since the marriage argument we are currently experiencing is a purely a religious one it falls under the same protections. In the opinion of any sober individual then, DOMA is illegal under The First Amendment.

How does the following stand up under the Constitution as fair? Where in the Constitution does it guarantee the financial benefits of Marriage to one man and one woman that two men or two women are not entitled to?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, no U.S. state (or other political subdivision) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President
Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

The law, specifically Section 3, codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, which include family insurance benefits for employees of the government, survivors’ benefits from Social Security, and joint tax filings. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case; however, the court rulings are under appeal. President Barack Obama‘s administration called parts of the law unconstitutional and announced in 2011 that although it will enforce DOMA, it will not defend it in court.[1] Shortly thereafter, the House of Representatives announced it would defend the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice.

Disgraceful Vote: Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ passes Senate

BettyJean Kling

A repeal of the military’s ban on gays and lesbians serving openly passed the Senate with a 65-31 vote Saturday afternoon.

It is absolutely disgraceful that in the annals of history it will be noted that in this twenty-first century we had to take such a disgraceful vote at all and even more disgraceful that 31 Senators voted against qualified individual citizens of these United States for obviously discriminatory reasons. There is no Constitutional ground for this or any other discrimination against our citizens who would willingly join our armed services and risk their lives and limbs in service to our country for a pittance of what these crooks in office receive for living like royalty, flying first class and working part-time. Any citizen who steps up and takes the following oath should not be prohibited unless the Constitution prohibits it, but not because of discrimination based on race, creed, national origin, color or sex .

Federal law requires everyone who enlists or re-enlists in the Armed Forces of the United States to take the enlistment oath. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting for a term of service into any branch of the military. The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Further, because of their disgraceful exhibition and the record thereof, we should work to remove these 31 Senators from office as they are not supporting and defending the Constitution according to their oath.
 

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (R-MA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

In America, we do not vote based on religious dogma. Perhaps Sharia Law which wants to work its way into our American judicial system would be a good lesson for those who would insist on religious based laws to reconsider why not? We vote based on The Constitution. Let’s hope we bring Marriage up next- that also is a vote based up to now has been influenced on religion instead of Constitutional Law.

When are we all going to learn what the Tea Party preaches – follow the Constitution and stay out of other people’s personal lives and out of our pockets. The Government’s job is

‘The government’s only proper job is to protect individual rights against violence by force or fraud…to protect men from foreign invaders…to settle disputes among men according to objective laws….The greatness of the Founding Fathers was how well they understood this issue and how close some of them came to understanding it perfectly.’ — Ayn Rand; Law Quote Viewhttp://www.schipul.com/en/q/?679 

How to tell if you’re a Good German

This post and the one after it are for all of us who think that we could never have participated in the Holocaust.

Programs that are being instituted in your village, town, city, county etc. right now, are programs that carry the stench of the future, and the past.  

Asset Based Community Development (ABCD)
Community Oriented Policing (COPS)
Neighborhood Revitalization
Neighborhood Stabilization
Know Your Neighbor
COPE

These programs are sponsored by your local government and are designed to find out everything possible about you.  Why?  Because you’re being assessed and mapped.  Your skills are being put on a map, searchable through GPS (global positioning system), so that you can ‘contribute’ to the well being of the community.  Your assets—stored food, water, tools, weapons—are being recorded. Click on this paragraph to see the questionnaire.

These programs are being touted as something YOU want, that YOU asked for—at a visioning meeting, perhaps, where you were Delphi’d.  They can’t do this without your assistance…and your neighbor’s, if you don’t cooperate.  What they don’t tell you is that they also record your limitations, your handicaps, your resistance, your personal behavior, your private life, your habits.  The skill-sharing is the candy-coating.

Now read this (from Wikipedia):
In Nazi Germany, a blocklieder (block warden) was the lowest official of the Nazi Party, responsible for the political supervision of a neighborhood or city block, and formed the link between the Nazis and the general population.  He was charged with planning, spreading propaganda, and developing an acceptance to the policies of the Nazi party among the typically 40 to 60 households in his area. It was also the duty of the blocklieder to spy on the population and report any anti-Nazi activities to the local Gestapo office.  This allowed for a Nazi terror state and was helped by keeping files on each household.

www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com

See our website for links to the questionnaire they are using right NOW.

Terry O’Neil, Jehmu Green: Molls of the 21st Century

Another Rant By: BettyJean Kling

N.O.W. and Women’s Media Center’s Democratic molls beware, the real feminists are coming!

I had such good hopes for N.O.W. when we voted in the new president Terry O’Neil but it is obvious, NOW National and many but not all of the state organizations are nothing more than Democratic Party Molls. Most of the so-called women’s groups that don’t label themselves conservative are in fact not the non partisan groups they purport to be – but are far left partisans who make it very clear only far left need apply! Moreover, they make it very clear they vote against any woman who is not FAR LEFT. Meg Whitman for example is a female candidate who clearly is Pro-choice but is labeled a whore by CA-NOW president because – it appears- she is a republican and it also appears will not be fired for saying so even though she said it after Terry O’Neil warned the next person to say it should be fired!

 Terry O’Neil

October 13, NOW calls on Brown, to fire any member of his staff who uses this word or any hate speech against women. For Immediate Release Contact: Mai Shiozaki w. 202-628-8669, ext. 116, c. 202-595-4473 Note* original does not contain the words from this day forward which by the way is ridiculous. Why from this day forward? If the N word was used would anyone say from this day forward?

Megan Carpentier | October 14, 2010, 1:45PM

Last week, the National Organization for Women and the PAC of the California NOW chapter took heat for their endorsement of state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) over Meg Whitman (R) in the gubernatorial race in the wake of comments by a Brown aide that Whitman was a “whore.” At the time, national NOW President Terry O’Neill said that anyone who “from here on” calls a woman a “whore” should be fired.

She might want to have a talk with California NOW President Parry Bellasalma, who today told TPM in response to a question that “Meg Whitman could be described as ‘a political whore.’ Yes, that’s an accurate statement.”

On NOW’s page they never changed the date to reflect the update – they updated the last paragraph and made a note saying so but never dated the change.At best this is an omission at worst it was an intended cover-up. Why from this day forward? If the N word was used would anyone say from this day forward? http://www.now.org/press/10-10/10-13.html

NOW: October 13, 2010

Last night at the California gubernatorial debate, Jerry Brown apologized for a member of his campaign staff suggesting Meg Whitman, his opponent in the race, be called a “whore.” This overdue apology was a necessary step; however, it was accompanied by an assertion that these sorts of comments are part and parcel of what happens inside political campaigns. If so, that needs to change.

While our California chapter’s Political Action Committee voted to endorse Brown on the basis of his support for women’s rights, the National Organization for Women clearly and unequivocally condemns calling Meg Whitman, or any woman, a whore. This term is hate speech that carries with it negative connotations associated with women, and it has no place in contemporary society.

NOW calls on Brown, from this point forward, to fire any member of his staff who uses this word or any hate speech against women.
                                                                            ###

Update: NOW clarified this statement with the addition of “from this point forward” to the final paragraph.

Patty Bellasalma, President CA-NOW

“The abuse of employees, whether in the workplace or in the home, is not acceptable,” Bellasalma said. “It’s a pattern that’s developing about how Meg Whitman treats people who she believes are beneath her. It’s a cynical game of the Republican Party, putting up candidates who are anti-women to garner women votes superficially.”
Why is she calling Meg Whitman anti-woman, it’s because she’s pro-life right? No, she’s pro-choice, but she is a Republican!

NOW is shrinking steadily because it caters to the Democratic Party and a small group of women to the elimination of all others. NOW had become a democrat extreme left- extremely Liberal – abortion only organizations hell bent on lesbian rights rather than all women’s rights who will turn on any woman in a minute if she does not  agree on their narrow platform.

A NATIONAL organization FOR women should encompass all women, not represent the minority to the omission of the vast majority of women. NOW continues to shrink and yet they continue to define feminism based on the minority members they have come to represent co-opting the term as their own, which justifiably belongs to every women. 

ALL women includes the smaller percentage of liberal women whose choice includes gay rights and abortion but not to the exclusion of the vast majority of women made up of independent women who do not necessarily agree these are women’s main issues and conservative women who absolutely do not want to have those two issues come to identify all women.

Jehmu Green  

And did you see Jehmu Green of Women’s Media Center starting up a new website Name it Change it! Good job. So now instead of just attacking conservative women – she will just be running straight out for the Democrats. She was on Bulls and Bears this morning lauding Obama for finally telling the truth about the shovels! It appears if a Democratic POTUS comes clean at some point we forget all the lies he told before! I’ll bet you dollars to donuts she doesn’t apply that to BUSH!

Thank you Jehmu if you help the media  stop attacking women we will all be forever grateful  but don’t think for one minute that will win the Dems any of our votes back . Nice try but we have your number. Clearly you are a Moll for the Dems out there trying to win back the women’s vote! Too late! As I explained above you do not represent the majority of women! You represent the Democrats, you represent the Liberals.

What you forgot is that the majority out here is mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore! I’ve named it – now you change it! You Democrat molls better get with the program- the majority is uniting and you are going to lose your grip on the term feminist. The real feminists are coming!

I am personally familiar with 3 state organizations MD-NOW, MI-NOW and NYS-NOW who do not fit the description above.  They support vigorous legislative programs, grassroots efforts, and have been there for anyone who has reached out for help.

Marcia Pappas
I wholeheartedly support the work of Marcia Pappas of NYS-NOW who is devoted to equality for all women and children and who supports their issues, specifically in areas of divorce, domestic violence and court bias against women. Marcia works tirelessly never asking where a women stands on various issues or what her party affiliation might be.  She has been called “the most visible activist in New York State and that is because wherever there is a women or child in need, Marcia has brought a rally there for her – in rain – sleet or snow!

Linda Mahoney
I wholeheartedly support the work of Linda Mahoney of MD-NOW who is devoted action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society.

Renee Beeker
I wholeheartedly support the work of Renee Beeker of MI-NOW is the Creator and Director of the National Family Court Watch Project. An advocate for reform of the judicial system since 1996, Renee is a respected contributing member to many grassroots and professional organizations including Stop Family Violence, a national grassroots organization with a mission to organize and amplify our nation’s collective voice against domestic violence.

National Organization for Women (NOW)

There are many good people like Marcia, Linda and Renee. We need to break the Democratic stranglehold on these organizations and we can and should. We the majority need to unite and show them what a national women’s organization looks like, sounds like and acts like!

Women’s Media Center

As for Women’s Media Center (WMC), it’s been a joke up to now as evidenced by its failure to come down hard on the media and the male candidates for sexism and misogyny hurled at every woman from Hillary to the present group of women that threaten to unseat the DNC preferred choices. This group will eat their own young to get to the top—they have not the confidence to make it in their own without the party and now they are trying to patronize us and fool us into believing they are on our side. They are not!

The Majority United

The Majority United  (TMU)stands proud with ALL women. We are neither left or right nor do we lobby for or against choice or gay rights, there are specific groups that specialize on those issues, instead support all women. We are so proud of those who have the courage of their convictions and stand up for what they believe in just as the original Suffragists did. Remember these women from both sides of the aisle are teaching us weekly that we can strongly disagree on some issues, yet stand together for the equal rights of women. Women have more in common than not and no one agrees with anyone 100% of the time but we can all agree that united and mobilized  we can achieve what needs to be done . TMU has three main goals and we support women who support those goals for ALL women, children and support The Constitution and the United States of America!

TMU
IMAGINE

Empowering Women to Unite & Mobilize !

To Restore The Constitution and Ensure Equality for All

1- Achieve an  End of Violence Against Women and Children.
2- Achieve Equality, Opportunity and Justice for All – this is a Human Right.
3- Achieve Representative Government of the people, for the people and by the people as intended by the Founders.

Gays and Women with Boyfriends Shouldn’t Teach (It Limits Freedom!): The Gospel of Jim DeMint

South Carolina Senator, Jim DeMint, was quoted in the Spartanberg newspaper saying that no one who is openly gay should be teaching in the classroom. And neither should unmarried women who are sleeping with their boyfriends.

Apparently hetero men can sleep with whomever they wish and keep their jobs. Good thing, or a lot of his Congressional colleagues would be out of work.

Then he continued, “(When I said that) no one came to my defense. But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn’t back down. They don’t want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion.”

Huh?

How does denying jobs to gays and women with boyfriends increase their freedom and limit government intrusion in their lives? How does this increase their freedom of religion?

So whose freedom is he talking about?

DeMint actually wants to limit the freedoms of the less powerful members of society — women and gays — in order to increase the freedom of more powerful members of southern society: conservative Christians who don’t want the burden of interacting with anyone who doesn’t share some of their views.

But these good Christians seem to have forgotten the golden rule. To paraphrase Jesus: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. And what about the second greatest commandment: Love your neighbor?

Georgia Platts

October is Gay and Lesbian History Month

 

Why Communitarianism threatens a free society

I have been reading articles by Amitai Etzioni, the professor at George Washington University, who is the director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies.  He founded the Communitarian Network, a non-profit ‘dedicated to the moral, social, and political foundations of society,’ and is the world’s leading proponent of communitarianism.

It doesn’t do you much good to criticize a theory without thorough research into it, so I’m doing my homework.

An article by Etzioni in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs entitled The Common Good and Rights, A Neo-Communitarian Approach (Winter/Spring 2009), is a concise argument for the central tenet of communitarianism: The common good must be a central part of our public morality, and human rights  and liberty must be subsumed into the service of all members of the society.  This is what he calls ‘balancing.’

Etzioni states that where there is no ‘community’ the people are disaffected, lonely, anti-social, alienated, and prone to finding artificial community such as gangs and militias.  Without community, in his view, there are no informal social controls that will serve to enforce the moral code and commitments of the residents. The antidote, he says, is to produce a community that uses censure, or pressure, to control behavior.

Here’s an example of what’s wrong with that concept.

Now, in an open society, such as the one we are now building, a gay person can live freely in many places.  An outsider just 25 years ago (and of course, still, in many places), a gay person is now able to form loving attachments without fear of job loss, loss of children, or shunning by society.  But if you take a look at the ‘community’ of Etzioni’s making, you’re looking at America in the 1950’s.  At a society that can shun you, shame you, reject you, attack you, and claim it’s for the common good.  And they truly believed that.  And many of them were good people.  And still are.  And if you define the common good as producing uniformity, and regulated, wholly expected results, then I suppose homosexuality is not in line with the common good.  But why would you want complete uniformity in your culture?  There is a perceived threat.  Whether it’s valid or not, the group can decide to reject and stigmatize a whole segment of the population.  For the common good.

Now, this is the kind of thing that was done in the name of religious prosecution.  Community morality.  How many have been persecuted or killed because they didn’t have the right religion?  This empowers mob rule.  Enforcement of morals outside of the law is not serving the Constitution of the United States.  Etzioni says that common moral beliefs make a community.  That sounds like a religion. Like environmentalism?  Has ‘green’ been hijacked and transformed to a secular religion?  Is it being used as an excuse and justification for restriction of individual rights?  Etzioni is defining the community as the planet.  The global village.  So, by extension,  just your use of the resources on the planet can endanger it, and make you a threat to the common good.

Your rights have been ‘balanced’ against the rights of the community as determined by some.  Whoever is the most dominant group.  Some group is going to be making these decisions.  How is the good of the community determined?  By the Delphi Technique?

Our constitution guarantees individual rights for a reason.  Because they are the first thing to go when a community takes on the role of the arbiter of behavior.

I do not feel comforted by the idea of community rule.  I have been at the receiving end of community attack.  Abuse.  Cruelty.  Why?  Because I dared to speak out about what was wrong.  Are these the people we want dictating what is for the good of the community?  The only way you can get to what Etzioni is talking about is to overthrow our entire system of law.  Our constitution and legal system are based on individual rights.

In Etzioni’s article he states:
“The neo-communitarian position seeks to understand as well as design society in light of the inevitable conflicts between rights, which privilege the person, and concerns for the common good, which privilege the community or society.”

Did you catch that? Design society in light of the inevitable conflicts between rights and the common good.

Re-Designing society. This is happening now.  In your town.  Right in your neighborhood association, your PTA, your city council, your place of worship, your local planning department, your schools.  This is not a remote, scholarly concept.  This is being imposed and enacted across the nation.

The overthrow of our legal system is in progress by the election of politicians  and judges who support communitarianism and Agenda 21.  For the common good.

You asked for it: What can I do about Agenda 21?

First take a deep breath and realize that you are not alone in this.  There are people all over your state, all over America, all over the world, who are with you.

If you’ve read our site, http://www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com, and read the links you are probably feeling upset and concerned about your future and the future of your country.  Good.  There are a lot of issues that make it into the news but UN Agenda 21, communitarianism, and sustainable development/SmartGrowth doesn’t show up much.  So you’re shocked about it.  You may even be hoping that it’s nothing, that it will blow over, that you don’t have to do anything about it.  But this is real and your voice is needed.  

You may be looking for a leader.  Take a look in the mirror.  This is the real face of grassroots.  YOU.

To start, the best thing you can do is to read more and open your eyes to the workings of your town.  You’ve heard the slogan “Think Globally, Act Locally”?  Take that to heart, to the real heart of what you see.  Take your local paper.  Read it.  So many of us take the New York Times or the San Francisco Chronicle but not our local paper.  It’s a rag, we say.  Who cares?  You should. Up above we said that UN Agenda 21, communitarianism and sustainable development/SmartGrowth don’t show up much in the paper, but they do, every day.  If you’re paying attention and reading intelligently.  Articles about redevelopment projects, bicycle boulevards, neighborhood summits, neighborhood elections, neighborhood revitalization projects, neighborhood stabilization projects, visioning, local boards, smart growth projects, low-income housing subsidies, transportation grants, green building retrofit programs, well monitoring, SMART electric and gas meters, and the people who object to them come out every day.  Connect with those people.  Tell them about UN Agenda 21.  Be a bridge.  

If you’re a sceptic, and you should be, keep reading and asking the questions.  Be a sharp researcher.  If you read about a group that is advocating for SmartGrowth, for instance, take a look at who’s in the group.  Google the names of the people running the organization.  Follow those links.  Who funds them?  What influence do they have on your community?  For instance, in our town, Santa Rosa, CA, there is a group that is trying to develop new neighborhood associations in conjunction with the City so that they can hand-pick neighborhood ‘leaders’ and shut out other voices.  It’s called the Neighborhood Alliance, a group founded by the local president of the UN-USA Association.  Didn’t know there was a local chapter of the United Nations in your town?  Neither did we.  What else?  The other founder is the director of advocacy for the California Lung Association.  A check of that group shows that they lobby the legislature for smart growth (that term means multi-story residential condos stacked on top of retail stores next to railway lines, proposed rail lines, or transit corridors; the preferred development style for Agenda 21).  Surprised?  We were.  That explained why the Board of the neighborhood association went nuts when my partner was elected neighborhood president.  They threatened her with a trial to remove her when they found out she and I had organized a group and sued to stop a local redevelopment project.  You get the point.  

Connect with others who are feeling that their property rights are being limited or taken away through excessive regulations.  Most people who do own property don’t own more than their own home, but if you do own a piece of improved or vacant land, whether it is rural, urban, suburban, commercial, residential, or industrial, you’ve been affected.  And you probably know it.  So do others in your situation.  Political parties are a diversion.  Don’t make that an issue.  You’ll find allies by watching the Planning Commission meetings on your local cable station, or by going down to the meetings yourself, listening for a few weeks, giving your card to those who are in a similar situation, and meeting them.  Tell them about UN Agenda 21.

You might get a shock, as we did sometimes, when you think you’re meeting with allies but find out that you’re mistaken.  Take the chance.  Spread the word.  

Yes, it takes some courage to point out actions being taken by your neighbors, by your town council, and by your community when you feel alone.  Try to get a small group together.  Here’s an example of a small group that has made a big difference.  Or maybe you’ll just have one other person. Go to your neighborhood visioning meetings.  Remember though, they use tactics like the Delphi Technique at local meetings to marginalize dissent.  You can learn very effective ways to monkey-wrench their tactics here.  Go to the City Council meetings and get used to speaking out.  It’s kind of scary at first but go for it.   It’s tremendously engaging to become involved locally.  It’s your town—Get Involved.  But don’t let them snow you.  Or use flattery to turn you.  Don’t be fooled.  

When you’re discussing UN Agenda 21 with people who are part of the sustainability movement think about their arguments.  Are they logical?  If they advocate for high density development in the center of your town, ask them: Why do you support vertical sprawl? Ask them: Did you know that low-income housing developments do not pay property tax?  Did you know that they do not contribute to paying for city services?  Ask them: Did you know that property taxes on new developments in an area that has been declared blighted contribute very little to the schools, hospitals, police and fire? The majority of their property tax is diverted to the Redevelopment Agency to pay off redevelopment bonds. If they bring up issues that raise questions for you, research the answers.  Use it as a learning opportunity.  

Here’s a way for your voice to be heard in every newspaper and magazine in the nation:  Go on their online sites and comment on articles related to UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.  Most sites will allow anonymous posting, if you wish to be anonymous.  

Do you subscribe to a newsletter?  Write something for it.  Go ahead!  Do your best and don’t worry if you don’t get it all in there.  

Start a blog.  Just do it, it’s easy!  Weebly is a terrific web-building site.  It’s free and you can easily have a website and blog in about 5 minutes.  As you learn more, post it.  Link to others.  Get support by finding others, like us, who have awakened to UN Agenda 21 and Communitarianism.  

Do you have a community media center in your town?  At the college or high school there may be a local TV cable station with classes in how to do a local TV show.  It’s fun, you learn a lot, and you get your show on the air.  Try a ‘man on the street’ show.  Ask everyone you meet:  ‘Did you know that (your town) was a member of ICLEI?’ or ‘Did you know that sustainable development is a United Nations plan?’

There’s an election coming up.  Go to the forums.  Ask:  ‘What is your position on UN Agenda 21?’  Hold up a sign.  Find out if your town or county is a member of ICLEI.  Ask: ‘What is your position on ICLEI?  Will you commit to KICK ICLEI out of our community?’  

Don’t look for a hero, don’t expect someone to do it for you.  You are joining a huge worldwide genuine grassroots movement.  Being green is using energy efficient ways to conserve, and using intelligent means to preserve our lives on the earth.  You don’t have to lose your rights and give up living with a personal vehicle, a private home, modern conveniences, and good food.  We’ve been told by local groups that they don’t want electric vehicles to be successful because that will stop people from getting out of their cars and onto bikes.  That even if all electricity came from renewables that people having personal vehicles are ‘anti-social’ and that streets should be bike only or removed.  

If you’ve been identifying yourself as progressive ask what that means.  Ask yourself what it means.  Think about it.  In your mind, move into a condo.  Get rid of your car and ride a bike.  Take your time thinking about this.  Stop eating any food that was not produced locally (within 25 miles).  Limit your water usage to 10 gallons per day.  Pay a carbon tax for any trip you take.  Wash your clothes and bedding by hand and hang them up to dry (try this for a month).  Perform your hours of mandatory volunteer work.  What does it mean to be progressive?  Are you a liberal?  We can own the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, too.  It’s ours.  We’re a big country with a lot of room and a lot of resources.  We’re cleaning up our pollution, we’re reducing our energy use, we’re more efficient with our water.  We are a nation of rights.  Not republican or democrat rights.  National, civil, rights. 

Remember The Who?  ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’ is a great tune by the great left radical, Pete Townshend.  Read the lyrics:
 

We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again

Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that’s all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no! 

I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Speak out about UN Agenda 21.   Stop the loss of your rights

Reaction to overturning of Calif. gay marriage ban

Another Rant By: BettyJean Kling

Prop 8 Banned Same Sex Marriage.  Yesterday a Federal Judge Walker overturned it. Today they are appealing that verdict. Arrrrgh!

“On no less than 14 occasions, the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right. This decision recognizes that Proposition 8 denied the plaintiffs, and tens-of-thousands of other Californians, that fundamental constitutional right and treated them unequally.”—Theodore Olson, plaintiff’s attorney

When we look back at our history of telling people who they can or cannot marry we find that we have been obviously wrong. First we could not marry out of our own nationality; my mother nearly got a Irish fella shot dead in her youth by my Italian Grandfather ad her brothers.

Then there was the religious problem, a Catholic will go to hell if she marries a Jew! What will happen to their babies- the kids won’t get Christened and might fall off a bike or get hit by a car and be banished to purgatory because of original sin!

Then God forbid a black man even looked at a white girl- he could be killed and any white girl who looked at a black guy … well we know she was just trash.

All the fuss and now all these things are commonplace … and except for a few bigots no one makes a big deal out of it anymore or at least they are not asking for Constitutional laws banning these relationships.

There is only one set of humanity left to pick on — the Gay and Lesbian folks! I wonder what they will do once we get over that hurdle?

Quotes in reaction to a federal judge overturning California’s gay marriage ban Wednesday:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15684705?nclick_check=1

 “We take our marriage vows very seriously. We will not take a honeymoon or rest until Proposition 8 is overturned and marriage equality is restored in California.”—Stuart Gaffney, 47, with his partner of 23 years during rally outside San Francisco City Hall

“I’m 57. I never thought this would happen in my lifetime.”—Leslie Hull, 57, during rally in West Hollywood.

“You also don’t want to get too excited, because it’s a long process. Last time we were allowed to marry for like a day and then they took it away. But at the same time, we have a black president—so let’s just get on with it! It’s about equality.”—Joe Briggs, 32, during rally in West Hollywood

“For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal. This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else’s makes us incredibly proud of our country.”—Kristin Perry, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8

“Today’s ruling strikes a resonant chord against discrimination that should not only withstand appeal, but change hearts and minds.”—Dennis Herrera, city attorney of San Francisco, which intervened on behalf of plaintiffs in the lawsuit

“The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. … It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop. 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.”—Andrew Pugno, attorney for ProtectMarriage.com, the group that defended Prop. 8 in court.

“We recognize that this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution—marriage.”—Kim Farah, spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which helped fund the Proposition 8 ballot campaign in 2008

“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.”—California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was named in the lawsuit but declined to defend the ban in court

“In striking down Proposition 8, Judge Walker came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it: Proposition 8 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry, without a sufficient governmental interest.”—California Attorney General Jerry Brown

Anne Rice Quits Christianity: Will she quit the Democratic Party too?

By: BettyJean Kling

She quit the church for Hypocrisy and unfairness and as she described it “this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous” will she also quit The Dems for the same reasons including purposefully contentious and untruthful and spreading false rumors ? They did so even in reporting her story and reasons why;  including pointing  to Michelle Bachmann directly as one of Anne Rice’s reasons.

On Wednesday, Rice wrote the following on her Facebook page:

“For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.”

The she followed this with:

“As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

Explaining herself further, Rice’s latest offering on her Facebook page emphasizes that her faith remains as strong as ever, but that it is the affiliation with some of the religion’s followers that has prompted her to redefine herself:

“My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.”

Apparently, because of the religious right’s imposition of Christianity’s dogma, into our politics, Rice has made the break from her affiliations with Christianity and Catholicism:

Earlier this week on her public Facebook page, Rice had expressed her horror and revulsion at two different news stories that shared similar themes.

The first was the co-opting of the “Christian” imprimatur by the GOP-linked “Christian punk rock” band You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, (see actual sentence and extended comments below) who deride America for not being “moral enough” to make homosexuality a capital crime like it is in Iran. The second story was an exposé of a seven-year old boy who had been indoctrinated into Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church, whose sole great commission is virulent hatred.

Ms. Rice has had an on again off again relationship with Christianity

The author’s relationship with her faith hasn’t been a straightforward one. Raised as a Catholic, she rejected religion early on and became a committed atheist. In 1998, however, Rice returned to her beliefs. Her journey back to her faith was detailed in her 2008 memoir Called out of Darkness. After reaffirming her belief in God, Rice took the decision in 2002 to publicly dedicate her writing to Christ, saying that she would now only “write for the Lord”. This was also marked by a turn away from writing her supernatural novels, whereby she chose to instead write about the life of Jesus and other similar subjects. Her return to Catholicism, which alienated some of her fans, came with a few caveats though, one of which was that she would continue to support gay rights.
http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/anne-rice-quits-christianity-over-anti-gay-anti-feminist-religious-right/

Anne Rice after having left organized religion returned to it and has now left again. She would do well to leave organized politics too! Ms. Rice, learned about the hypocrisy of Christianity and I applaud her decision as I agree it is the same with all organized religions. Indeed it is the same with any and every organized group. She now needs to quit organized political groups and become an Independent.

Forget the Dems and join the RIDs. Below is a Sentence from the Anne Rice story written in the Huffington Post by Michael Rowe Award-winning independent journalist, essayist, and author

The award winner in his story adds supported by Michelle Bachman, before the words ‘who believes that Gays should be executed’. After I read the sentence below, I was horrified as most less astute readers were probably led to believe, that Congressman Bachmann  and the GOP believes homosexuals should be executed. 

SO- I followed the link and found out a bit more of the whole story. I hope you do to. I am a BAC myself however, I had no idea, nor do most Christians that this band feels this way. BUT I can tell you, I have no desire to hear them or invite them anywhere now. I suspect they will be less invited since this interview and less supported as well. I urge you to contact you Congress and Senators and urge them to Ban this group from Future GOP venues and fund raiser events.

Now back to the Left and KOS and the award winning Michael Rowe. What does this sentence appear to say to you? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/why-anne-rice-has-never-b_b_664576.html

Earlier this week on her public Facebook page, Rice had expressed her horror and revulsion at two different news stories that shared similar themes.

The first was the co-opting of the “Christian” imprimatur by the GOP-linked “Christian punk rock” band You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, supported by Michele Bachmann, who believe that gays should be executed, and who deride America for not being “moral enough” to make homosexuality a capital crime like it is in Iran.

Anne Rice, is repulsed as am I by this rock group  and their view as it is reported here. I am repulsed by many far right Christian views against Gays  and the Westboro Church leaves me  without words. But to place every Christian, all the GOP and Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and others in the same boat is morally equivlent to the racism and gay bashing. It’s morally reprehensible and Anne Rice should be outraged and speak out against this as well. She and her son and her cause are being used! Every gay person should be apalled by this gross injustice.

Frankly, Ms Bachmann is against Gay Marriage as are 70 % of all Americans, as are President Obama, and President Clinton and SOS Hillary Clinton. Just because she supported a Christian Band does not mean that she supports the execution of Gays nor that she knew they felt this way or would utter such words.

Further, I can’t image anyone in office, stupid enough to admit having such feelings if they had them. What I am saying is, this misuse of journalism is just as narrow minded and wrong as the dogma coming out of the church. Do unto others or it never stops.

Meanwhile best wishes to Anne Rice and her family as they move forward in a live and let live attitude and let’s have a bit of what we preach including the political agenda of the left to smear the right for what they are not guilty of.

Anne Rice has attempted to take back the absolute core of her spiritual beliefs, that being compassion, love and understanding and a personal relationship with the Divine, from the grabbing hands of those who continue to use religion as a weapon to deny others their rights and dignity. In that, Rice has given a voice to other like-minded believers who are tired of having their faith hijacked to support personal and political agendas.