Saturday, June 04, 2005

Protect Bloggers Free Speech Rights -

Open Letter to the Federal Election commission

Attention - This post is good for archive and historical purposes only. The FEC has stopped taking comments. All emails sent to the FEC address below will be returned as undeliverable -

Sailor in the Desert has written an open letter to the Federal Election Commission and has kindly set it free on the internet to anyone who wishes to use all or part of it in crafting a letter to the FEC.

Be sure to include your name and mailing address: -

In case you missed the news Sailor has that covered too. (click here for his complete story) - A Sailor Quote - Back last fall, a federal court judge decided that the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act some how needed to include the Internet as part of that regulation. The FEC has been ordered to apply this law to the Net. This could have the effect of ending the free political speech of bloggers. Why the FEC never appealed this ruling is beyond me. Both Senators McCain and Feingold are on the record as stating that their Bill was never intended to stifle the free political speech of bloggers. Either the FEC needs to appeal this decision or Congress needs to pass legislation exempting the Internet and specifically bloggers from the reach of McCain-Feingold. - end quote - - He also has a link to a Washington Post Editorial that is wishy washy as far as I'm concerned. Below is Sailor's Letter. Use it as you wish as a template for your own or cut and paste those parts you feel most applicable to your feelings on the matter. Email it to your friends. Include this line:

- Be sure to include your name and mailing address: -

An Open Letter to the Federal Election Commission

To the Commissioners of the Federal Election Commission:

One of the most basic founding principles of this country was and is the right of free political speech. This possible attempt to regulate the blogs is flies directly in the face of that principle.

Consider this; The blogosphere is the electronic equivalent of the Town Square. Bloggers are those people, that in a bygone era would be upon a soap box in that town square, expressing their political beliefs. That being said, the government should no more attempt to regulate the free political speech of the bloggers, then it would have attempted to silence the citizen on that very soap box in the town square.

Having read some of the reasoning for this hearing, I have to wonder if the FEC will soon be trying to attempt to assess the worth of the campaign volunteer, who goes door-to-door handing out a candidates literature or spends time manning the phone banks. How much is a volunteer's time worth to any campaign? The FEC would not even consider assessing that volunteer's time as a campaign contribution. So why would the FEC even consider trying to assess the value of a bloggers link to a candidate's web site as a campaign contribution?

Any attempt by the FEC to regulate the political speech of any blogger is clearly a violation of the First Amendment and not at all what campaign finance reform was attempting to do.

Clearly, McCain-Feingold, was never intended to include the regulation of the free political speech of bloggers. Senators McCain and Feingold are both on the record saying this. As I see it, the Commissioners have a few paths they can go down:

1) They can table this and await legislation from the Congress clarifying the status of the blogs.
2) They can appeal the court's decision, which I believe they should have done in the first place.
3) They can extend the press exemption to the blogs.
4) They can release a firestorm and put in place rules unconstitutionally regulating the rights of free speech of bloggers.

In conclusion, let me say this, if the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

Thanks Sailor!

Friday, June 03, 2005

Homosexual marriage Bill California AB19 Defeated

A bill has been defeated that would have changed the language of the state's family laws - Basically the bill strikes out "MAN/WOMAN" and replaces it with "TWO PERSONS" in the state's family laws. I had blogged on this previously and that blog can be read here .

(quote from San Francisco Chronicle) Ultimately, the Legislature remained unmoved, voting 37-36 for Leno's bill, AB19, four votes shy of the majority needed for approval Thursday night. For the time being, the vote signaled an end to lawmakers' struggle over one of society's most divisive issues, and it indicated that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger probably would not be faced with a bill on the subject this year. - end quote -

I (prying1) saw articles saying that the governor would and would not have signed the bill. The latter news had said he would not. Perhaps he had read my email and changed his mind. :-)

Prying1 sez: This really is a blessing for the homosexual community. Some may not see it that way but it does not give them the false sense that their lifestyle is viable.

The avid activists that are spearheading this issue have motives beyond those stated and are using emotional pleas to plow their agenda through and into law. The homosexual marriage issue has been voted down in the City of San Francisco which shows that this issue has divided even the homosexual community. Not all in this group want to see the definition of marriage changed..

Had this passed it simply would have given the activists the audacity to push the envelope even further. They would not be satisfied and indeed they still are not satisfied. Please don't think this issue is now over. This issue and others like it will continually surface. We need to continue praying down the spiritual darkness that hovers over and around our capitols and elected officials.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Must Read For "American Troops Torturing Captives" Buffs

Sailor in the Desert has a post that is really eye opening. Unless you want to go around with eyes closed I'd suggest you click here to find out what is really happening with the American Troops torturing the terrorists!

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Old School Photos Online - FOR FREE!!!

This site is amazing - All sorts of countries available with thousands of school yearbook pictures. I was insecure about giving personal info so I used my ex-wife's and the pics looked clearer than they did in her old yearbook. Check this one out!

Monday, May 30, 2005

Both Sides Are Right! - AND Wrong!!!

A few blogs ago Clive Allen of Gone Away fame wrote a comment (1st comment on this blog) - quote - "I think it's important to realize that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He's not even a Libertarian. The fact is He has His own politics and, when we become part of His Kingdom, we cease to be right wing or left wing, socialists or capitalists. We become Christians and are a part of God's politics from then on." - end quote -

Although loathe to admit Clive is right (I love my politics.) It is true that God could care less which political party we belong to as long as we listen for his voice. I have pondered on it a bit and want to recognize and move upon the truth in what Clive said. Since that time I went to a prayer conference led by Dick Simmons (of Men For Nations) and something he said added to Clive's statement.

Mr. Dick Simmon's Quote: - "Liberals demand justice with no demand for righteousness and conservatives demand righteousness without a demand for justice." - end quote -

Although this line is not absolute there is a lot to it that can be seen to be true.

For example some food for the poor programs show this. With no real accountability some of the food ends up scattered willy nilly to those who really are not in need or sold by the recipients to purchase tobacco, drugs or alcohol. Liberals feel the loss is worth the good that is done. Conservatives look with skepticism and call the whole program a scam. (please know that I realize this is a general statement and does not apply to all persons of either side.) It is true that some programs are merely a scam to part people from their money. They are the results of greed working off the goodness of giving hearts. Neither side should put up with this obvious unrighteousness because it causes the good programs to suffer. Demands for accountability from the recipients of welfare programs (can they truly work or are they lazy?), demands on the programs themselves (is the majority of funds going to administration?) will increase the conservatives willingness to participate.

The same can be seen with the abortion issue. Many liberals say that they don't believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control yet that is the main reason they are executed. On the other hand many conservatives do not believe there is any good reason for abortions to be performed. With the lives of 48 million children forfeited in the U.S. since Roe vs. Wade there has to come an agreement between liberals and conservatives on the abortion issue instead of allowing it to continue unabated. From this issue has grown a big business in the baby parts industry which I'm certain most liberals do not truly endorse.

Justice and righteousness need to work hand in hand. Since both sides are lopsided in their beliefs I propose that everyone rethink the positions as they come up with an eye on the demand for both issues in their personal conclusions.

If you must ask the tired old question of whose level of righteousness we use and where we draw the lines I suggest you get in touch with a.) Your conscience and see how far you have allowed it to get twisted. and b.) God.

Sunday, May 29, 2005

Baby Parts For Sale

Ever wonder why partial birth abortion was defended by the pro-abortion crowd. This is the procedure where a baby was turned so it would be a breech birth. (legs first instead of head first.) Then after all of the baby's body was out of the mother, except the head, they would poke scissors or a knife into the brain, stir it around, suction the brains out, crush the skull and then remove the baby the rest of the way. This was supposedly done to save the mothers life but the question I always had was if the body of the baby could get through why not the head too?

Well it seems the answer has nothing to do with the health of the mother. It has everything to do with money. Here is the link that tells the story. -

Baby Parts for Sale -

Quotes - Kelly stated, We would sell the tissue to private contractors. They in turn would sell to other universities and researchers. There was a high demand every week to buy such fetal tissues. It was shipped by UPS,Fed Ex, Airborne and sometimes by special couriers. Sometimes we would take the specimen in a box to the airport and put it on as regular cargo, to be picked up at the destination. And did these shipping companies know they were transporting baby parts? No. All they knew was that it was just human cells. But it could be a completely intact fetus. It might be a batch of eyes, or or 40 livers going out that day, or thymuses.

And then the obvious question. Kelly is still working for this company, so why did she come and tell this story to a pro-life group? One day when she was working, a set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, `Got you some good specimens, twins.' I looked at him and said, `There's something wrong here. They are moving. I don't do this. This is not in my contract.' I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this. But she did go back and dissect them after they were dead. She said, That's when I decided it was wrong. I did not want to be there when that happened. And then it happened again and again. At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, and we had live births come back to us. And then? Then the doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead.
Did the abortionist ever alter the procedures to get you the type of specimens you needed that day? Her answer was Yes, before the procedures they would want to see the list of what we wanted to procure. The [abortionist] would get us the most complete, intact specimens that he could. They would be delivered to us completely intact. Sometimes the fetus appeared to be dead, but when we opened up the chest cavity, the heart was still beating. She was asked if the type of abortion procedure was intentionally altered to deliver to you an intact specimen, even if that meant giving you a live baby? Her answer was Yes, that was so we could sell better tissue, so that our company would make more money. At the end of the year, they would give the clinic back more money because we got good specimens.

prying1 sez:
What I find a pity is the large bloc of liberals that continues to claim it is for the choice of women that they fight for abortion. In reality they are helping BIG BUSINESS. The same group of people liberals claim to hate when it is about oil. Either they are once again believing a lie since it is not about choice, it is about big business; or they really are hypocrites and know that baby parts are helping evil capitalists get rich. One way or the other they need to change horses in mid stream. This is wrong and cannot continue unabated...