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.

I listened to Billy Graham on Larry King’s radio show. Larry asked the minister what he thought of the President. I remember Mr. Graham praising Bill Clinton for the amazing work he had accomplished with the economy and foreign relations among other things. Then he compared the President’s lying and cheating ways with the average person’s daily sins. Larry King broke in with a question: maybe the minister was ready to forgive the President. Mr. Graham replied that he already had forgiven him.

While I was pounding on the dashboard, Billy Graham and Larry King discussed their worry that the people of this nation do not appear to be concerned with the blatant immorality and dishonesty in the White House. I hollered back to the radio, “Why should they? The highest minister in the land has forgiven him; we have all forgiven him!”

A friend told me he watched the President on some televangelist’s show. Bill Clinton expressed that he was just a “struggling Christian.” My friend confessed the show was so moving that he felt convicted for judging Mr. Clinton.

Last month, Dick Armey came to town. I went to a luncheon to hear him speak. I joined in the standing ovation as he came to the podium, because I believed he had earned it. He talked of many light and superficial things. Then he told us, as long as the polls showed the people favored the President’s cheating ways, he was not going to stand against him. Then he went on to admonish us that if we want to see leadership in Washington DC we had better show it from the grassroots. When we are ready to lead from the bottom, he will be there to provide leadership from the top. I could not bring myself to stand and applaud his speech.

Most our “leaders” are administrators and clerks. Few are willing to take the tough stands. They don’t mind organizing consensus but they don’t have the fortitude to lead! We wonder why the polls favor Clinton; but I would bet the polls would be different if the highest ministers and the highest legislators of the land would be willing to stand and say that sin is wrong!

They cannot do that. It would ruin the whole unity thing. One of my ex-pastors, or rather church administrator, used to harp on me to be in unity. To stand against sin was divisive, though he would never put it that way. What he would say was that our attitude was more important than the message though he could not prove that premise through Scriptures. Correcting the messenger’s attitude was more important than confronting the sin. And somehow, no matter how one presented their case, a stand against sin was always done in the “wrong attitude.”

He was uncomfortable with any disagreement. If we ever disagreed on the smallest point, the conversation would not continue until we could agree. I had to agree with him, not the reverse. I told him that I would consider his points as I examine the Scriptures; but that was divisive and he complained that I was destroying unity. I could never convince him we could be united despite our minor disagreements.

One day we were chatting and I expressed a concern that maybe half the church body was not Christian (it was a large church). I expected him to be upset with my assertion, instead he countered that thirty percent or less were probably Christian.

Another day, the pastor, a few elders and I were having a discussion (actually, it was an interrogation and I was to defend myself for bringing a message with the “wrong attitude.” The message was that the head elder had, among other things, been instrumental, while head of the school board, in incorporating homosexual education in the sex-Ed program and had convinced other Christians that it was abstinence based). During this conversation, I brought up our “statistics” of the less than half or less than thirty percent Christian.

Then I posited the question: If unity is the most important element, and we all need to agree to be united, doesn’t it follow that unity will be found at the mid-point, or fifty percent? The agreement was unanimous. So I proceeded: If unity is at the mid-point of our ideas and theology and we take the whole collective body of this church and we assume that less than half are Christian, then doesn’t it follow that the point of unity will be in non-Christian territory? This time, they all agreed I was divisive.

Friend, you can talk about all the black helicopters you want. You can list the conspiracies of the Illuminati. You can list the laws that our unelected bureaucrats are writing that are eroding our Constitution. For that matter, list the laws our elected officials are writing, as well including Republicans. You can talk about IMF, Federal Reserve and large multinational corporations. You can list our moral sins, including the promotion of abortion and homosexuality and the role they play in world population control. You can talk about environmental activists, religionists and “Christian” socialists like Tony Campolo. You can talk about the mega-church pastors, or facilitators, with their congregations of itching ears. To some degree, each is bringing us closer to the one-world government. But there is one element that is largely ignored and it is the most fundamental and the most insidious it is the common thread of all: Consensus and its message of Unity.

Right now, it is infecting our churches, schools, civil government and our social structure. This was the foundation for the Tower of Babel and it will be the foundation for the New World Order. Let us unite and not be scattered – we are brainwashed to be “nice,” to be “kinder, gentler,” to agree and not judge. God forbid that anyone should be like John the Baptist and hold our leaders accountable for their public sins!

Consensus rides at the edge of truth. Remember Satan’s words to Eve; “Did God really say” Consensus challenges us to re-examine the truth, to see if maybe we have misunderstood it. Christians have accepted the world’s definition of a “kinder, gentler, encouraging” person, so that we have forgotten our Biblical mandate to stand against sin and to teach all nations to obey God’s laws. Don’t the Scriptures tell us that the whole duty of man is to fear God and to keep His commandments? But the modern Christian message seems to be “God loves us.” So we add Christian faith to our collection of self-improvement tools.

The message of the Bible, however, is that our hearts are sinful, we cannot improve ourselves and we are bound for an eternity without God if not for His mercy and His love but His love demands obedience. That obedience is going to separate us from the world. We will not be casually different. Christ told the disciples that He came to bring a sword. Joel tells us, “Mighty are those who obey His command.” Christ affirmed this when He said, “The kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.”

Picture the battle, Satan and his armies are running to and fro, flailing their swords and deceiving the hearts of the people and the nations it is all-out war. Now, find the Christians, or those who claim to be: The leading ministers are preaching a message of forgiveness – to the point of condoning mans’ sins, because “God is love.” The local ministers preach “unity” and getting along in the community and on the job. The political leaders who claim to stand for Christian principles (or some derivation thereof, such as “Family Values”) refuse to stand because it would be divisive and they could lose elections. Instead, they focus on strategies and “majorities.” The swords of demonic armies are swinging and the blood is flowing, while the Christians are in meetings.

We all have an excuse to retreat not to stand out. If we are different from the world, we are casually different. From all appearances, our differences are only metaphysical we’ve got our act together. How absurd! If our focus is to be kind and gentle, why does the Bible talk so much about war?

Friends, our strategies have not won elections nor lost them. God has called us to stand. He is the One who raises kings and deposes them. It is by His pleasure alone that our elected officials are who they are. We have been willing to vote for the lesser of evils to satisfy short-term strategies and we are surprised at the evil in our land! Every minor defeat, we modify our strategy and we compromise with the enemy, hoping for a greater victory. But the angel of darkness keeps swinging his sword! The New World Order may soon come, but why should we help to usher it in?

God has called us to stand. Paul told us that after we have done everything to stand, to stand and stand firm! We have not done everything to stand. We are not standing firm and we have not raised a banner.

Where there is no vision the people perish, Solomon wrote. Hosea affirmed that the people perish for lack of knowledge. If we were to stand and stand firm, from the grassroots to the highest Christian leaders of the land, though we may suffer defeats at the beginning, eventually the people would understand there is a difference. In the long run we will prevail – Tandem Vincitur!

God save our nation.

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.

In his article for the Monroe Weekly entitled, CONSERVATIVES: MAKE EVERY VOTE COUNT, Paul Elvig wrote:

Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition (1989-97), asserted in the June 12th issue of the New York Times that, ‘If the pro-family movement bolts the Republican Party, they will become the cultural equivalent of a Perot movement. They will enter a no man’s land in which they lose influence and lose the ability to use a major political party as a vehicle to highlight their issues and their agenda and their concerns.’

The liberal community with its family-hostile agenda would get their biggest break in twenty years if even five percent of pro-life/pro-family Republicans leave the party for a third, forth, or fifth political party this year.

To lose Republican majorities we now have in Congress, would mean that the successful July 23rd House override of the President’s veto on the late-term abortion ban would never have happened. It would mean an obstacle-free path for the homosexual agenda . . .

He goes on to describe horrors and statistics that await our nation because of the actions of disgruntled conservatives. You see, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, have been the scapegoat of the GOP whether within or without the Party. When we were in the Party, it was our ideals that alienated the Republicans from the voters. And now that we are gone, it is our fault they have lost their voting base.

Those who believe that the political process will be the salvation of our nation would like to have it both ways. But we know better, don’t we. We know that God alone raises kings and deposes them. Our strategies have neither won elections nor lost them.

Remember the story of Joshua in Joshua chapter five. As the Israelites were preparing to take the city of Jericho, Joshua saw a man with a drawn sword and he asked if he was for them or their enemies. And the commander of the Lord’s army told him that he was for neither and it was Joshua’s responsibility to submit to God’s authority.

The same holds true today: God does not fight for us because we are the American Heritage Party. No – we are called to submit to His laws and look to Him for victory. And for those of us who have read the end of the Book, we know that God will have His victory!

If one could presuppose that human strategy was ever responsible for an election victory, they may choose the election of 1994 – the “Republican Revolution” brought in by the “Contract With America.” That was the year it appeared that principle was more important than winning. The GOP had a vision to win the hearts of the American people and the people responded.

But the vision was short lived and the “Contract With America” became the “Contract On America”. No longer was the vision to raise the flag and wave it. Instead, they exchanged the flag for strategies and they substituted leadership for approval.

When I was chairman of the Snohomish County GOP in the early nineties, I wrestled with Party leadership because I could see they had no intention of winning; and if they should win, they had no intention of leading. Their only concern was protecting their seat at the table. Be that as it may, many people saw the 1994 election victory as the salvation of our nation.

But what did we receive? Instead of rolling back civil government:
•    bureaucracies have increased;
•    funding for obscenity and abortion have increased;
•    federal authority over education has increased;
•    many crimes have been reclassified as federal crimes;
•    we have multiplied treaties and increased the rise of globalism;
•    mandates have been sent to the States impeding our first and second amendment rights;
•    environmental restrictions have increased, impeding property and inheritance rights;
•    Executive Orders have increased in exponential fashion and have gone unchecked;
•    Posse Comitatus has been ignored as federal agencies have engaged in police and sheriff work with the aid of military forces;
•    Our Republicans representatives have given us national ID cards;
•    and this list could go on.

Did the Republican Congress finally balance the budget? Or did they strip Ninety-Five Billion dollars from the Social Security trust account to appear to “balance” an over-weening general budget that they did not have the intestinal fortitude to grab hold of. And then, to boot, the returned Five Billion back to the account to give us the impression they were rescuing it! God save us – they are no different than the Democrats!!

What about our problems in Washington State? Some time ago, I was reading an account in the Seattle Times and my heart went out to Dale Foreman, the fearless leader of the State GOP – or rather, the fearful leader of the State GOP. He related his problem to the reporter: He will receive a letter from a liberal, or moderate, member of the Party and then he receives a letter from a conservative member and he has to give the same deference to both. How troubling life can be.

His problem is not the diversity of opinion within the Party. His problem is that Dale Foreman, the Harvard graduate, the man of letters cannot, or will not, lead. He lacks conviction because he has no guiding principles. How can you expect him to lead us out of socialism when he has no principles to lead with?

Clyde Ballard, the Republican Co-Speaker of the House: That is a safe position to be in and much more comfortable than when he was Speaker because now he has authority and notoriety but no accountability – he can always blame the bad results on his co-Democrats. When he was the Speaker, he would not lead. He would facilitate, blend, mix and serve up something palatable for his liberal detractors and the media. The closest he came to leading was to beat conservative representatives into submission. Therefore, our conservative bills would go down to defeat but he looked good.

It was under his guidance and leadership that the Partial Birth Abortion ban destroyed as he orchestrated the removal of the referendum clause and then the final gutting of the bill altogether and finally defeat. He has put compromise ahead of principle. He has put public perception ahead of principle. How can he lead us out of socialism when he has no principle to lead with?

I fought long and hard for a principled platform within the Republican Party. The battle grew tougher every year as leadership determined to make the tent wider and wider. The GOP wants to include everyone so that there is no room for principle and the big tent becomes a three-ring circus.

But lack of principle serves a two-fold purpose: Not only can the leadership claim they are making a bigger tent, but they remove the benchmark. There is no longer a standard by which to judge the candidates and evaluate their actions. And they become like the Democrats. How can the Party lead us out of socialism when it has no principle to lead with?

Now we come to the question: Are you throwing away your vote by voting for a third party candidate?

Remember the story of Joshua: Our strategy and our power will not win elections – we must submit to God’s law and His authority. In the book of Daniel we are told that God alone raises kings and deposes them.

Speaking against unGodly alliances, God tells us in 2Ch 16:9 “For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.” This was God’s rebuke to King Asa for doing a foolish thing by trusting in his alliance with the king of Aram. God does not need coalitions and Repbulicans to accomplish His plan. For that matter, He doesn’t need the AHP. He only needs a remnant whose hearts are fully committed to Him – and He will have it!

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. If you are willing to compromise your principle for the sake of winning, don’t be surprised when the candidate you voted for compromises his.

Many so-called conservative candidates would have you believe they must vote for bad bills in order to win re-election to save us from candidates who would vote for the same bills. What is happening is most politicians are swayed by campaign finances, global interests and their pensions – they are looking for a seat at the table.

The GOP wants you to believe they are the saviors of the nation, or in the alternative, they are necessary for conservative Christians to have a voice in the political arena. Don’t be fooled, unless they return to principle, they will go the way of the Whig Party before them. But do not gloat, keep a sober mind – the American Heritage Party will go the same way when they lose their principle as well. We must remain vigilant – and we must pass our vigilance on to the next generation.

Principle – attending to the laws of God, must be the absolute goal. Our convictions dictate that we cannot win using the same strategies as the moderates, liberals, Democrats and neo-conservatives.

We are not commanded to win. Throughout Scripture, we are commanded to stand firm. And the Apostle Paul tells us in Ephesians chapter six that after we have done everything to stand our ground, we are to stand and stand firm.

We must raise the standard:
•    the troops will rally; and
•    the voters will have something to hale to.

If God is willing we will have victory in the election of candidates. Nonetheless, our victory is not in winning elections – our victory is in changing the hearts of the people and we can only do that by standing firm.

We must be willing to lead while yet a minority if we expect to lead as a majority. This is the Achilles heal of the Republican Party – they never expected to lead!

If we never become the majority, don’t minimize for a second what a “leading” minority can accomplish. Remember our Founding Fathers were not in the majority, they had less then a third of the people on their side. Yet they were not discouraged, they didn’t succumb to building coalitions and making bigger tents. They were victorious because they stood firmly for principle and they were willing to lead – even if it cost them their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. They did this with a firm reliance upon God, their Creator and Lawgiver.

If you want to return our nation to our Common Law, constitutional foundation;
If you want laws that are just;
If you want to reduce civil government intrusion into our lives,
Then you must be willing to stand for Biblical principle.

What is the conclusion? Are we wasting our vote by voting for a third party, specifically the American Heritage Party?

We have enough facilitators to drag our nation to hell itself. We have plenty of kinder, gentler politicians who are self absorbed in their own well-being and public appearance. Our nation is void of leadership. God has given you a vision – Raise the standard, wave the flag and lead!!

God save our nation,
Dean Isaacson
27 March 1999
Snohomish County American Heritage Party Convention

God save our nation.

Columbus, OH – May 27, 2010 – On May 26, 2010 the Ohio Senate’s Health, Human Services and Aging Committee chaired by Sen. Steve Buehrer (R-Delta) passed Sub SB 243 – a ban on Human Animal Hybrids.  The Ohio Christian Alliance, lead by the strong leadership of Chris Long, brought together pro-life leaders from around the state to oppose the abhorrent practice of human-animal hybrids.  Dr. David Prentice was also on hand at the Ohio Statehouse to present expert testimony.

Read an excerpt from Mark Harrington’s testimony below:

You [this committee] have heard testimony from a couple of Ohio research institutions about how this ban would hurt Ohio in its ability to attract some of the brightest minds in the scientific community.

Human-animal hybrid research is unethical and there is no need to use animal embryos or eggs in this manner to advance science and research.  We can proceed with medical advances and respect human life at the same time.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Unfortunately today, most of the debates over medical ethics center on the “how” instead of the “why.”

The right or wrong of a particular practice or the means by which we conduct our research is often passed by in pursuit of the ends.

Let me be clear – We all want to see treatments for sickness.  We all want to see cures for disease.  But the question is at what price?

I am becoming more and more convinced when it comes to emerging bio technologies like human-animal hybrids that many of these researchers do not believe in ANY limits on research as long as it has the possibility to produce an economic end that suits their agenda.

The bottom line is human-animal hybrids are immoral.  And an immoral means can never be justified to bring about a moral end.  In other words “we cannot do evil to bring about a good.”

CBR is urging our Ohio membership to call their State Senators and ask for them to support S.B.243 with a vote on the Senate Floor.  Currently the states of Louisiana and Arizona have a ban on human-animal hybrids.

Action Item – If you live in Ohio call your State Senator and tell them to vote for the S.B.243 Ban on Human – Animal research! Go to: http://www.ohiosenate.gov/directory.html

Mark Harrington is the Executive Director of CBR Midwest, and President of the Pro-Life Institute.

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.

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

Since January, the federal government has taken over America’s largest banks and financial houses, our automobile industry, and now it seems determined to get control of our health care system. I am concerned about Washington state citizens’ loss of freedom. Our best hope is the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says that the states are entitled to all rights not specifically delegated to the federal government.

Already, more than 30 states are studying the Arizona Health Care Nullification Bill that prohibits the federal government from forcing its version of health care on the residents of Arizona. The bill declares that Arizona citizens are free to choose any form of health care they desire.

WHY A HEALTH CARE NULLIFICATION BILL?

Constitutional Law professor Michael Connelly recently reviewed the entire text of President Obama’s proposed “public option” bill, The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. He says the bill is far worse than he imagined. Not only does it indeed provide for rationing of health care, free health care for illegal immigrants and free abortion services, the bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government-run system.

He says the bill eventually results in all decisions about personal health care being made by federal bureaucrats, most of whom will not be health care professionals. In addition, hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

BUT THAT’S NOT THE WORST OF IT -

As bad as that sounds, it gets much worse. According to Connelly, “This legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead, it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.”

In effect, he says, the Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is the Constitution does not grant members of Congress the authority to regulate health care or businesses.

The Obama bill would give his administration access to your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician and hospital. This is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. Your right to privacy will be nullified regardless of what the Third and Fourth Amendments may provide.

Finally, if your private health insurance is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by President Obama, you will be taxed. They’re calling it a “tax” instead of a fine because they want to avoid the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, that won’t work because since nothing in the law allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of a tax, it definitely deprives you of property without the “due process of law.”

LAST RITES FOR YOUR RIGHTS?

The 10th Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under Obama’s health care bill, neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

Clearly this is a federal government takeover – not a reform. It is a way to seize almost 20 percent of the economy and the final ownership of your body. The bill mentions no real cost-cutting measures, such as lawsuit reform. There’s nothing about stopping the tens of billions of waste, fraud and abuse of Medicare and Medicaid.

Decades ago, Ronald Reagan warned us how socialized medicine was a carefully calculated path to socialism, which is the ruling of a country by a few powerful elites. Reagan’s exceptional speech is well worth your time, and it’s a real wake-up call for us today.

I plan to demand enforcement of the 10th Amendment – State’s Rights. In 1997 I introduced Senate Joint Memorial 8002 – a letter from the State of Washington to the President of the United States and the U.S. Congress claiming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The memorial reads, “Let this serve as a notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.”

While it did not pass, we are introducing it again in January. Rep. Matt Shea, R-Mead, will introduce House Joint Memorial 4009, and I will support it. You can follow this bill – and its progress at www.states-rights.org. Most importantly, we need you to write your state senator and representatives and tell them to support this legislation. With strong state’s rights enforcement, we can keep our freedom to control our lives – and your health care – exactly the way we want.

Sincerely, Val Stevens