Here is the ancient article:

Our elected officials and bureaucrats are dealing away our rights and freedoms like they are in some kind of a global crap game. In 1994, we said we were going to turn things around with the “Republican Revolution” but the game goes on as before. The players change and the leadership–if that’s what you call it–take on new faces. Where have the Republicans even begun to roll back unbridled bureaucracies? overweening government? and the rise of globalism? They have not. Instead they have sent new mandates to the States restricting our first and second amendments, expanding the role of government in education and now giving us ID cards.

Senator Orrin Hatch chairs the powerful judiciary committee of the Senate. It is this committee’s responsibility to evaluate the judicial nominations of the President. On one occasion when Mr. Hatch was speaking before the Heritage Foundation, he warned the audience of the activist judges that Clinton had appointed–that is, he told the conservative audience what they wanted to hear. When one of the listeners pointed out that Mr. Hatch voted for the last eighty-three out of eighty-five appointees, he left in disgust.

He is not alone. Many of our most sacred of candidates will speak the conservative line while voting for legislation that expands the size of civil government, increases spending and brings us into the New World Order. Linda Smith voted for the Careers Bill, the Terrorist Bill and the like. Now she is telling general audiences that she is working to make government better. What happened to smaller?

Do you remember her dramatic win by write-in vote in 1994? That was the campaign that pitted an extremely conservative Smith versus an extremely liberal Unsoeld. After such an unprecedented success, why did she win by such a slim margin and only after a recount in 1996? She will tell you that she was targeted by the unions. I believe, however, she ostracized too many conservatives with her globalistic voting record. I predict she will lose this next election.

I think that Randy Tate lost his 1996 election for the same reasons and for targeting his campaign toward the liberals. Remember his ads reminding the voters how he had increased entitlement spending? Now the Christian Coalition wants him to chair their club. They deserve him, he voted for the New World Order and larger civil government every chance he could. At least now, he will get a pension.

Why are the congressional Republicans telling us that the new budget is so great when it increases spending, continues to promote obscenity, dis-education and death? The sorry fact is that our children are saddled with this debt by the same people who are destroying their opportunities to produce wealth and pay the debt. What we have are Republicans who are trying to convince us that they need to vote for bad bills in order to get re-elected to protect us from the bad people who will vote for bad bills.

I have been fighting within the Republican Party for many years to protect the vision and direction. It is becoming painfully obvious why the leadership, many elected officials and their wanna-be groupies have worked so hard to eliminate any and every principle and standard within the Republican platform. They claim to want to reach out, be inclusive–be kinder and gentler. But the underlying motivation is to eliminate the benchmark–remove the standards by which their actions can be evaluated.

A party platform is the voice of the people, the grassroots. If a “conservative” platform can be orchestrated to emulate the state, the people will have no idea that they are being herded into a socialist, police state. The battle for the mind galvanizes my resolve. It is clear to me that we must fight even harder within the Party for Godly principles and standards. Then again, it may be time for a third party.

Last year, after the primary election, I had anticipated that Buchanan would accept the Taxpayer Party nomination–I believed he was winnable. When that failed to materialize, I believed that there was no viable opposition to Bill Clinton, except through the election of Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. I resolved in my heart that my vote was going to be a vote against Clinton (this is the first time that I had ever considered voting “against” rather than “for” anyone). What I really wanted, was for the election to be over and Clinton to be gone.

God used the influence of two good friends to turn me from my rationalization. Their efforts alone would have failed if God had not already put me under severe conviction. For every argument I put forward, my friend in Bothell would counter by reading excerpts from my own writings to refute me. Soon, I could no longer justify my pragmatism.

Bob Dole and Jack Kemp professed to be Christians, but their actions have proved that the Bible is not their foundation. In fact, more often than not they are hostile to Biblical principle. They are strangers to our Constitution, as well.

When I remember how Dole worked so hard to divide the Christians and separate them from the Republican Party; when I consider that he voted for the FACE bill, restricting our First Amendment rights to free speech in the protection of the unborn (two sections of the Constitution violated in this measure alone); when I consider his votes funding Planned Parenthood; when I consider how both men have worked diligently for bigger government–creating a new, improved, more efficient Tower of Babel; when I consider . . . I could not with a clear conscience say that I could defend my vote for these men before God–especially when two God-fearing men were running for that office.

Both Howard Phillips and Herb Titus–two men that I highly respect–are God-fearing. They understand the Biblical foundation of law and they both understand the Constitution of the United States of America. Howard Phillips’ credentials go back a long way in the fight for Godly leadership of our nation. Herb Titus was the founding dean of Liberty University’s School of Law. He has written extensively on our Biblical and Constitutional foundation. These men were the natural choice for anyone who wanted to return to the founding principles of this nation and set forth a Biblical standard for governing.

Last week a few political hacks got together to chew the fat. Once again, when I began to put forward conservative principles and how these may be impacting our pattern of governing, several of the others turned the conversation to pragmatism and winning. They posited the argument that it takes fifty-percent-plus-one vote to win. I countered that we have almost pragmatized and strategized ourselves into the New World Order. We can no longer continue to compromise just for the sake of winning. The majority of the establishment candidates have demonstrated that they are easily swayed by global forces, pensions and campaign financing. Within this context, we cannot continue to fight to win elections, we must start fighting for the truth of God’s Word and the souls of the people.

Whenever we get into these conversations about principles versus winning, someone always brings up the argument that Jesus told us to be shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves. Mat 10:16. In this sub-clause Christ was not speaking to winning elections, nor was He in anyway suggesting that we compromise His Word to accomplish our goals or agenda. If you read the verse in full and the following verse and on through verse twenty-two, you will understand that Christ was warning the disciples to discern well who their friends and true brothers in the Lord were. For many would infiltrate the church to hand the believers over to the authorities. He ends His instruction with this admonition: “All men will hate you because of Me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” If anything, Christ was warning against pragmatism.

This nation was not founded upon compromise and rationalism. It was founded upon the belief that we are accountable to God for the principles that we stand for and the people that we elevate to high office. And this foundation was paid for in blood. Our nation is no longer willing to pay for freedom with blood–most certainly not with social exile. We have seduced ourselves with the belief that we can pay for liberty with credit.

We will all stand before God; and the Bible warns us to fear God, not man. It is God who raises kings and deposes them, regardless of our form of civil government and regardless of our vote. I cannot run phalanx for God, nor can I help Him out-strategize the devil. If it is His will to send judgment upon us He will do just that. How do we know that the lack of electable candidates with any integrity may be a test upon the people of God to see where they will stand? If it is God’s will to break up the political parties, He will do that regardless of our compromise and coalitions. God Almighty reigns and it is our duty to give glory to Him.

My vote injects a bit of my character into the political arena. However possible, I want to inject Godly principles, not pragmatism nor compromise. I want to be able to stand before God and defend my vote. He will not reprimand me for lack of pragmatism–He won’t tell me that if I would have just compromised a little, He could have accomplished His will. On the other hand, He will reprimand me for lack of faith and failing to stand. We must hold up a standard and trust God with the results.

George Washington said, “If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The rest is in the hands of God.” Jesus Christ told us that the kingdom of heaven is forcefully advancing and forceful men lay hold of it. Mat 11:12.

What was interesting about the pro-abortion group, when discussing a bill requiring a woman to watch an ultrasound before choosing abortion, a spokesman for the group claimed we need to have less government, not more government intrusion between a woman and her physician. However, when the issue of animal abuse came up, he and other group members wanted more government regulation to “strike fear” into the people. And finally, cell phone use while driving was brought up. These same people argued intensely for more government restrictions on the use of cell phones.

These people are blinded by the death they embrace, they cannot see the hypocrisy in their arguments – or maybe they do not care, as long as they can make their points. They tried to sound Republican, however, one of the members arguing, referred to GOP members as “they” and that gave it away.

When arguing for more cell phone regulations, one of their outspoken members claimed while working in Washington State, he was nearly run off the road by four different drivers who were texting. Two things need to be pointed out about this: first, this happened in Washington State where there are already laws against texting and driving; second, he demonstrated clearly the law does not work and is not enforceable. Nonetheless, he was resolute – we need another law, even if the law cannot be practically applied.

What death can’t kill immediately, it will choke. People on the side of death tend to seek refuge in regulations. While people on the side of life understand we must leave some things to personal responsibility. The divide comes down to this: will we serve God or man – the state? Will we choose life or choose death? Choosing to serve God instills liberty and responsibility into our social fabric. Choosing the state, increases regulations and tyranny. This is why conversations of death and the law of liberty cannot mix.

Steve Vick, Phil Hart and Vito Barbieri are solid pro-life, conservative Christians. I am proud of them for sticking to their guns. They were polite to their dissenters, yet they did not budge from their positions – they did not try to win their votes, so to speak. Around the ultrasound question, Steve pointed out this is not about intruding upon the relationship of a woman and her physician; it is about saving the life of an unborn child. Phil Hart backed this up as constitutional, in that, the Declaration of Independence makes clear it is the responsibility of the state to protect our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When discussing animal rights and making it a felony for torture or neglect of an animal, Vito pointed out it is a slippery slope without some kind of firewall to separate intentional torture and neglect that results from hardship. But the group was not deterred, they wanted the government to “strike fear” in the hearts of the people so that no animal is ever abused. When it became clear, during the conversation, most this “torture” was youthful pranks, Steve asked these people if they were willing that high school boys should spend a year in prison for assaulting an animal. Most of the group thought it was a reasonable idea.

The revealing note was the size of the pro-abortion, save-the-animals group. Our society is more and more turning their backs upon God’s laws and the founding principles of our nation to embrace the conversation of death. God save our nation.

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=452763

Are we concerned about the right things?

The Arizona immigration law appears to have raised concerns. But ironically, the concerns are not for our fellow U.S. citizens in Arizona. Instead, the concerns are focused on how the law will impact the individuals who have crossed into the United States illegally, as well as the impact it might have on illegal labor, and the impact it might have on the Mexican economy should those same workers fail to send back their earnings to their relatives in Mexico.

Along the same lines, many concerns have been raised regarding how this law might be enforced. But surprisingly little discussion is focused on addressing how to best resolve the illegal immigration issue.

Now Rep. Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa has introduced immigration enforcement legislation here in Minnesota, prompting us to have the conversation on a local level. Because this measure was introduced so late in the session, it will most likely be shelved until next year. That gives us time to examine the issue and tell our representatives how we would like to see the legislation shaped to enact effective, moral, and reasonable immigration enforcement methods. Ideally, it should be in a manner that considers the human rights of all people, and places the rights of the U.S. citizens at the heart of the dialogue.

Thankfully, this debate is also helping to force federal engagement on the issue, which is ultimately necessary to resolve the national-level equities at stake. Disappointingly, initial comments from our president and from many of our elected representatives on both sides of the aisle have more to do with acknowledging Mexico’s concern regarding enforcement, than how to protect U.S. equities and U.S. citizens.

In any real debate, everyone must have an advocate; however, it would appear as if both the U.S. and Mexican leaders are planning to advocate for Mexican migration plans. These plans, if put in place, will help to manage the flow of illegal workers by legalizing their ability to work in the U.S.

So far, it appears they will do nothing to address the cost of educating, policing, or reducing the large numbers of illegal immigrants living in the United States, or ease the burden of the taxpayer in Arizona or any other border state. If politicians or their constituents oppose this Arizona legislation that enforces existing law, then they must design viable new immigration legislation that fixes the illegal immigration issue, addresses the associated fiscal impacts, and meets the needs of our citizens. Simply disagreeing with proposed methods of enforcement does not address the issue or resolve the challenge, and that is what we must do as a country.

Before we here in Minnesota leap in on one side or another of the issue, perhaps it would be good to remember the following:

• It is natural to have empathy for the people who are crossing into the country illegally because they live in a desperate situation. Many are hard-working people who clearly believe it is the best option for them and for their families. That empathy, however, does not require condoning any illegal actions that accompany their decisions.

• Illegal immigration is not just a Mexican issue, but given the number of illegal immigrants who are Mexican, it is a logical place to start the dialogue. Clearly any good legislation will address all illegal immigration originating from any country.

• There is a moral imperative to deal justly and humanly with all people, so we must find ways to enforce our laws in such a manner. Ignoring the law or not enforcing it because it “makes us look heartless” is dodging our responsibilities to uphold the law and find solutions to the problem.

• Saying we need illegal immigrants to work here because “Americans won’t take those jobs anyway” is neither accurate, nor just. Americans have a long history of rolling up their sleeves and taking the work that is available. In actuality, it is the employer who benefits from exploiting the undocumented worker. Why would we support or promote that practice?

• There is indeed a legal border and a legal means to enter this country. Many people have worked hard to enter the country legally and many, many more still hope to do so in the future. Whatever we do regarding this issue, we should remember them and their dreams of U.S. citizenship are part of what makes up the diversity we enjoy in this country.

Perhaps if we can remember these things as we discuss the challenges we face regarding this issue, we can then talk about how we can help the citizens of the United States as well as Mexican citizens in a manner that is legal, moral, and economically viable.

Senate Bill 6452 was a direct attack on Washington’s faith-run Crisis Pregnancy Centers by pro-abortion advocates diametrically opposed to their mission.  The bill was an
out-and-out assault on both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

As many of you know, CPCs are non-profit pregnancy resource centers generally associated with a religious community. They offer advice and support that encourages pregnant women to choose life – that is, to keep their baby or give it up for adoption rather than to abort it.

Senate Bill 6452 required Crisis Pregnancy Centers to submit to a series of state regulations that would completely undermine this mission. The regulations would define CPC’s as “Limited Service” Pregnancy Centers.

All “Limited Service” Pregnancy Centers must:

1. Offer “medically and scientifically accurate” reproductive health information. (They would not be able to teach abstinence only.)
2. Deliver pregnancy test results immediately without any counseling or intervention. (Essentially silencing any efforts to offer abortion alternatives.)
3. Protect any medical information, including pregnancy test results (no parents can be notified).
4. Post notices in at least 30 pt. type in English and Spanish explaining that the center does not provide medical care, abortion or comprehensive birth control services. The notices must be posted on entry doors, inside the building at the registration desk and on the Web site and any advertisement for the CPC.
5. Be subject to the Consumer Protection Act. That means anyone who is “injured” under this Act can bring a lawsuit to prevent future violations and recover actual damages, including the cost of the lawsuit and attorney’s fees. The court can also award triple punitive damages up to $25,000. One successful lawsuit would shut down the average CPC.

The Crisis Pregnancy Centers have always aimed to reduce the need and desire for abortion by encouraging women to consider the long-term ramifications of continuing a pregnancy or ending it…to think more deeply about what’s at stake. They show new mothers that their pregnancy is not just a collection of cells, as some believe, but a living human being.

CPCs provide an alternative to abortion-centric Planned Parenthood. It’s clear their mission is succeeding if abortion proponents are willing to introduce legislation this malignant.

SB 6452 was introduced quickly, under the radar, at the instigation of the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. These agencies aim to force the above regulations on CPCs, but specifically exempt themselves on the basis of their willingness to provide abortion services. Since CPCs are largely affiliated with religious organizations, it is unlikely that they could, in good conscience, accept these regulations.

This bill was an assault on religious liberty, which is absolutely protected by Article 1, Section 11 of our state Constitution and freedom of speech, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Thankfully, the Crisis Pregnancy Centers learned of the bill early and hundreds of CPC supporters showed up to the hearing, clearly shocking the Democrat committee chair who expected to sneak this bill through committee unchallenged.

Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, testified eloquently against it. You can hear his testimony by clicking on his photo. It’s well worth a listen.

Because of this avalanche of opposition, the bill died in committee.

If this malicious legislation had become law, it would have shut down the efforts of religious organizations to encourage women to choose an alternative to abortion. Then how long would it take before another bill was introduced to muzzle what can be taught at church-related events, and later, in our churches?

It is unlikely that we have seen the last of this bill. I expect it to surface again in 2011, but this time we’ll be ready.

Please commit to speaking out against legislation like this, even if it means coming to Olympia to register your displeasure in person.

Sincerely,

WHEREAS,  on April 17, 1952, the Congress of the United States approved the Joint Resolution to provide for setting aside an appropriate day as a National Day of Prayer (Public Law 82-324; 66 Stat. 64); and

WHEREAS, the history of our nation is indelibly marked with the role that prayer has played in the lives of individuals and the nation; and

WHEREAS, historically our greatest leaders have turned to prayer in times of crisis and thanksgiving; and

WHEREAS, the virtues of prayer reflect a common bond: hopes and aspirations, sorrows and fears, remorse and renewed resolve, thanks, joyful praise, and love;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of the State of Washington, do hereby proclaim May 6, 2010, as the DAY OF PRAYER in Washington State, in keeping with the wishes of Congress, and I invite Washington residents to join me in this special observance.

Signed this 22nd day of April, 2010
Governor Christine O. Gregoire

ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON – 22 MARCH 2010

The federal takeover of 1/6th of the U.S. economy won’t fix health care, it will harm it. A majority of the American people have made it clear that they strongly oppose a government healthcare takeover. Rife with partisan backroom deals, the process leading up to the passage of this socialized medicine bill has violated every rule of good statesmanship and sound economics.

The indifference and arrogant dismissal of the legitimate concerns of millions of Americans by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and my opponent, the incumbent Rick Larsen, is unacceptable at best. If my campaign for the United States Congress is successful, I will do everything within my power to repeal this legislation and work to advance free market solutions that increase choice and accessibility to Health Care.

John Koster, Candidate
2nd Congressional District

Today let’s take a closer look at two recent lone dissents by Justice Sanders. He believes the court is there to protect people’s legal rights and will stand for them, even if he stands alone. He sees a dissent as an epitaph on a tombstone for a legal right violated. Although dissents have no immediate effect on the rights of the parties, hopefully they will stimulate further thought and perhaps reconsideration in future decisions. After all, Plessey v. Ferguson (separate but equal), was ultimately replaced by Brown v. Board of Education (separate is not equal) — but it took a while.

Justice Sanders was most gratified when he visited Seattle’s new city attorney-elect in December to see that Peter Holmes had a quotation on his computer from Justice Sanders’ lone dissent in Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776 (1997). That decision denied a dying man his right to use medical marijuana in his final illness. Perhaps this was to remind Mr. Holmes of the potential consequences of misused government power. Justice Sanders believes the people of Seattle have a very fine public servant in Peter Holmes. That dissent was also reprinted almost verbatim in the Seattle PI as well, and may have laid some of the groundwork for the medial marijuana initiative later passed by the people. Ironically the most recent lone dissent deals with the same subject. But some things need to be said repeatedly before people are able to hear the truth.

State v. Fry, 2010 WL 185857 (2010)

Stevens County sheriff deputies went to the Fry residence to check out a marijuana growing operation. Tina Fry met the officers at the door and told the officers her husband Jason had a legal prescription for medical marijuana. Nevertheless the officers obtained a search warrant based on the smell of marijuana despite the statute’s injunction that medical marijuana users “shall not be penalized in any manner, or denied any right or privilege,for such actions.”

Fry moved to suppress the evidence obtained arguing that there was no probable cause to issue the warrant since he presented evidence of the legal prescription to the police indicating he had a right to smoke before they sought the warrant. Justice Jim Johnson upheld the search in his majority opinion; Justice Tom Chambers concurred in result while Justice Sanders wrote a lone dissent.

After the opinion was published, the Seattle Times quoted a representative of CannaCare as saying it is “a disaster for us…It basically says that no matter what, they can arrest you at will, prosecute you at will, put you through the system, and cost you thousands in legal fees, even though they know you’re a legal patient. That’s just wrong. We are guilty until we can prove ourselves innocent.” The Olympian also provided a very good explanation of the opinion and dissent. And, Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times posted an article siding with Sanders.

State v. Pugh 2009 WL 5155364 (Dec. 31, 2009)

Bridgette Pugh called 911 to say her husband beat her up and was now walking away from her apartment. The police arrested him for assault; however when he was tried the wife didn’t show up to testify. Over Mr. Pugh’s objections the court allowed the prosecution to play the 911 tape without live testimony to support conviction, and he was convicted based on the tape, which, of course, he could not cross examine. Although the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution provides the right of the accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”, Justice Madsen writing for the majority held the right to confront the witness against you was not violated because the tape was not “testimonial.” Justice Sanders countered in the dissent that it was a narrative of past events so of course it was testimonial and therefore a 6th Amendment violation.

But the state constitution provides even more rights than the federal Bill of Rights. One reason Justice Sanders writes so many dissents is that he follows the express language of our state constitution. In this case, the language is very clear: “In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right…to meet the witnesses against him face to face…”

In his dissent, Sanders wrote “What is there about ‘face to face’ that the majority doesn’t understand? ‘The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right names.’” [Ancient Chinese Proverb]

In the opinion Justice Sanders explains that the people ratified our state constitution by popular vote in 1889 and we must apply it by its plain language as it would have been understood. Apparently this view is now radical thought, and “thinking outside the box” to say the Constitution means what it says, and says what it means. Unfortunately, only Justice Sanders brings this view to the court. But at least someone reads the text and will apply it as written.

AT WHAT POINT DO WE GO BANKRUPT?

Frankly, I’m worried for our nation and for the state of Washington.

Within the next 12 months, the United States Treasury must refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt, along with additional deficit spending, estimated at $1.5 trillion.

This is simple economics: The Treasury can’t borrow $3.5 trillion in only one year. That’s nearly 30 percent of our entire Gross Domestic Product! Where will the money come from?

Typically, to minimize its interest burden, the Treasury borrows for short durations and then “rolls over” the loans when they come due. In theory, as long as they can extend the debt, there’s no problem. And that has led to ever greater amounts of debt for ever shorter durations at ever lower interest rates.

PAYDAY IS SOMEDAY

Sooner or later, creditors start asking themselves: What are the chances I will ever actually be repaid? And that’s when the trouble starts. Interest rates soar. Funding costs skyrocket. And bankruptcy is certain.

In fact, economists Alan Greenspan and Pablo Guidotti created a formula to accurately predict when a country will go bankrupt, or “default.” The Greenspan-Guidotti Rule is simple: If a country does not have enough in reserves (savings) to cover all of its foreign short-term debts when they become due, it will default.

When this happens, we become a terrible credit risk, and speculators target our bonds and currency, making it impossible to refinance the debt. Then default is certain. Using this scale, the U.S. has reached guaranteed default.

BIG DEBT, LITTLE SAVINGS

The U.S. holds 8,133.5 metric tons of gold worth about $300 billion, 725 million barrels of oil reserves worth roughly $58 billion, and $136 billion in foreign currency reserves. Altogether that’s about $500 billion of reserves.

Foreigners own 44 percent of our debts, which means we will owe them at least $880 billion in the next 12 months – an amount far larger than our reserves. With $1.5 trillion more of deficit spending slated for this year, our total funding requirements will top $3.5 trillion.

As the United States continues to move closer to defaulting, creditors hesitate to buy our bonds knowing the value of the payback is uncertain. If the U.S. defaults, our state’s ability to borrow and our businesses’ ability to borrow and grow local economies will also be at risk.

We will only become solvent again when the government stops spending – both at the state and federal level.

Sincerely,

Are the homosexuals finally going to take control of our culture and push their depraved lifestyle on our children and families?

Ballots were mailed last week to over 3 million voters in Washington State asking them to either approve or reject Senate Bill 5688. Passed last spring in the legislature, SB5688 would strip away the protections of traditional marriage that were ensured with the passage of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) just a few short years ago.

What kept SB5688 from being signed into law by a very willing governor were a few courageous people who came together to file a referendum to allow the voters to make the final decision – to REJECT this bill.

Frankly, it was nothing short of a miracle that R-71 qualified for the ballot.

Amidst harassment and even death threats by the homosexual radicals pushing this into our faces, just enough signatures were gathered to give you the final say on the upcoming ballot.

And now, we need one more miracle to stay the course and ward off – what could be – the final assault on our families and American culture by the homosexuals.

You may just be that miracle…

Do you realize what is going on here? Consider the following:

- In 1970, (on the heels of a “free love” 60′s radical culture) sodomy laws were repealed in Washington State, with government turning a blind eye to a behavior commonly considered perversion – and still the case with a majority of Americans.

- Organizations, such as NAMBLA, (North American Man Boy Love Association) appeared on the horizon seeking to repeal “age of consent” laws (NAMBLA is still in business today).

- Various pro-homosexual websites (most now taken down) have shown that homosexuals’ real intent is to “normalize” homosexuality – which means pushing the lifestyle through public schools, beginning with elementary school-aged children. They will settle for nothing less than your full-scale acceptance – whether you like it or not!

- After 27 years of relentless pursuit, homosexuals finally received protected class status from the Washington State Legislature in 2006, making it illegal for you to refuse to rent them a house, or hire them on account of their homosexuality.

- Canada already has laws making it illegal to speak against homosexuality on the streets. Bills exist presently in the U.S. Congress to do the same. In the last few weeks a Canadian church pastor was arrested for speaking against homosexuality.

Now do you see what’s happening? Like the proverbial frog who ends up paralyzed and unable to get out of the water as he waits too long and the temperature reaches boiling – the homosexuals have been winning incrementally, taking their time, while we’ve been asleep at the wheel.

But it’s still not too late … and I want this to be a wake up call.

And I hope you will put up a clarion call to your friends and family and let them know that we are on the verge of losing the battle of our lifetimes if we don’t stand up now!

Or … if we do stand up now … we’re on the verge of victory. It’s up to us.

This is a fight we cannot afford to lose – but one we can win now. And the only thing standing in the way of an easy victory on November 3rd is a few miserable dollars to reach the voters with the truth – that silent majority of people who, for whatever reason, won’t stand and fight.

To date (you can look it up your self on the Public Disclosure Commission website) the homosexuals have amassed over $1 million to sell this re-invention of marriage to an unwitting population.

That $1 million is in stark contrast to the paltry $60,000 we have raised.

Meanwhile, if we lose on November 3rd, people will approach me on the street and ask me how it happened!?

My reply? “How big was the check you wrote?” (Most will have given nothing… )

We don’t have to lose. Every piece of research says that a large majority of people want to see our traditional definition of marriage remain intact. If the election were held before the media began, the homosexuals would lose by 7 to 8 points. That’s why they are raising so much money to sell this as something it is not and overcome the deficit.

That’s also why it is so very important that we raise enough money to reach voters with the real story and to combat the following:

- Ads cloaking this as a “fairness” bill – not being about marriage. (Senator Murray, one of the bill’s homosexual sponsors said marriage is the end game. It is a Trojan horse from homosexuals who seek to overturn thousands of years of sacred family tradition).

- Ads showing homosexual couples with children trying to appear as normal American families. (The sociological effects of fatherless homes are clear from every study, and from experience as we see the devastation in Scandinavian countries where this is rampant. It also continues the objective of the feminization of the male in our society).

- Ads showing older couples in support of SB5688. (Citizens aged 62 and older were included in the bill only to help the homosexual community garner their support. Yet, there is little of consequence in SB-5688 that heterosexual domestic partners 62+ cannot get now from a simple power of attorney. Seniors are being used.)

WILL YOU STAND UP NOW AND COME TO THE AID OF MARRIAGE?

Larry Stickney, who is leading our effort, has put his life on hold to fight this fight on our behalf. His household bills have at times gone unpaid, while he has remained faithful to this cause. Now it’s our turn.

As a long time sitting State Senator, I’m asking you to join this fight – a fight easily winnable if we can just reach more people with the message you’re reading now. So far, we cannot even afford to buy TV ads at all.

Perhaps you’re a miracle person who can give many thousands of dollars for our TV ad campaign. Or, if you’re like a lot of us, you can only afford to give $1,000, $500 or less. No matter where you are, or what you can give, every amount large and small will help us save the sacred institution of marriage we hold so dear.

We have faced several defeats on this front in recent years. This is one we can win and set the homosexual agenda back. Will you help us?

Sincerely,

Val Stevens, State Senator

P.S. With just two weeks until Election Day, time is running out. Can you stop right now and send your most generous contribution? When you’re finished, will you commit to calling at least two friends and asking them to help? The homosexuals are betting you won’t. I’m hoping you will. Thank you!

Protect Marriage Washington PAC
PO Box 501
Arlington, WA 98223
http://www.protectmarriagewa.com/index.php/donate-online