By Chris Charles

Last November voters in California approved proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that disallowed homosexual marriage. In fact, every single time the people of the United States have been given a vote on “gay-marriage” they have rejected it. Gay activists have had to look elsewhere to advance their cause. Their plan has been to enlist the unelected, unaccountable judiciary to further the cause of “gay rights”.

The centuries old definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.  In 2000 California and other states passed domestic partnership laws as an alternative to marriage for those with other forms of domestic relationships. The domestic partnership laws insure that people who live an alternate lifestyle can enjoy the essentially the same civil “rights” that married people do. This was a major victory for gay rights activists. Gay people can be in a legal committed relationship just like marriage. Unfortunately, this was not the end, it was only the beginning. 

Gay activists are not content with gays having the same “rights” as straight people, they will only be happy when the term marriage is used. This whole debate is a battle of semantics. Traditional or religious people object to the term marriage being used to bond two people of the same sex. This is not homophobic, these same people also reject, triads, polygamy, and interfamily marriage. All of these groups live alternative lifestyles, they also want their relationships to be called marriages but the law forbids it. Do you hear anyone calling for legalization of polygamy? The gay marriage crowd says they are supporting basic human rights; what about the basic human rights of a loving couple that cannot marry only because they are related? The gay lifestyle is an alternative lifestyle. Gay activists want it to be a mainstream lifestyle, and they will not be content until we accept it into the mainstream of American culture.

Most Americans, despite their disapproval of the practice, accept gay people. They are treated well and welcomed in most neighborhoods. Most American families have gay family members whom they love and respect. The gay lifestyle is an accepted alternate lifestyle. Contrast this with most gay activists, who have no tolerance of differing opinion. Business people across the state of California have been hit with boycotts for donating money to the “yes on prop 8” campaign. Lists with the names and addresses of donors were published for the world to see putting these people in danger.  People who speak out against homosexual marriage are publically scorned and ridiculed in the media. Every detail of their life is examined to expose any kind of impurity to discredit that person’s view and to prevent any other person from coming forward for fear the same fate awaits them. Gay protesters have even targeted churches because of their religious beliefs.

Again and again the “gay mafia” proves that they are intolerant of any opinion but their own by using force to get people to do what they want. They do not want a fair and open debate on the issues they want people to accept their views or be destroyed. People cannot object to gay marriage on religious grounds without being called a “hater”.  The gay community needs to respect the views of people who believe that marriage is a holy contract between one man and one woman.

Many in gay activists are democrats, so democrats and other liberals get a pass from gay activists. They have selective outrage based on your political affiliation. When Carrie Prejean, a 22 year old beauty pageant contestant, was asked for her opinion on gay marriage and she did not support it she was ripped apart in the media for simply holding a viewpoint that a majority of Americans hold. Not to mention it is essentially the same viewpoint the President of the United States, Barack Obama holds. In fact, many democrats hold the view that marriage is between a man and a woman; Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and many others. Interestingly, no outrage is directed at these people. They are democrats after all, they get a pass. Similarly, gay activists continuously attack Christian churches for their “bigoted” beliefs.  Gay protesters continuously target Catholic, Mormon, and other traditional Christian Churches. The Muslim faith is spared their vitriol, despite the fact that homosexuality is a capital offence in most Islamic countries. Christians say; “we love the sinner but hate the sin” Muslims say “death to all homosexuals”.  Which is more harmful to the gay community? Isn’t death worse than disapproval of a certain private activity? Not to the homosexual extremists, irradiation of all homosexuals in the Islamic world is an issue for the back burner.

The scorn of the gay community can only be directed at Conservatives or Christians. Even when a democrat says something homophobic they get a pass. When Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico called someone a “maricon”, (Spanish for faggot) he got a pass. Would a Republican governor get to keep his job if he or she had made such a statement? Liberal Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger was called homophobic for calling democratic legislators “girly-men”, a far cry from “maricon”.

A popular past time of liberals is “outing” gay Republicans or conservatives. They think that this proves hypocrisy on the part of the “outed” person as if all gay people believe in gay marriage. Newsflash, many gays across the country do not support gay marriage, are they homophobic too? Sometimes conservatives who are heterosexual are called gay as an insult by liberals, such as when Joe Wilson accused Ken Mehlman and David Drier of being gay, calling them “fruitcakes”.  The antigay comments made by liberals go virtually unnoticed or ignored throughout the gay community and the media.

These kinds of transgressions go unnoticed because the Democratic Party and gay activists are in bed together. The gay community is just another “subjugated minority” that the democrats can count on to vote for them. Democrats cast gays in the role of the victim of “right-wing” conservatives so that the gay community votes as a group (for democrats). Most liberals don’t care about gay people they care about gay votes, so gays need to remain “second class citizens” in their own eyes. When people in American shed the chains of perceived oppression, their eyes are opened to all of the freedom and opportunity available to them. They would realize that democrats need them far more than they need democrats. Instead of being outraged at society over the word marriage, they would see that most Americans welcome them into their lives, and that they can do whatever they want to do, or be whatever they want to be. America is the land of limitless opportunity, for all people.

Conservatism is for freedom and equality for all. Conservatives along with the majority of Americans are not bigoted towards people that choose a different lifestyle; we just want traditional lifestyles to be respected as well.  A cornerstone of the traditional family is marriage; to allow the term to be redefined would be to show a lack of respect for the traditional family. Homosexuality is inherently different for heterosexuality, the same as a man is different than a woman. They are two completely different types of relationships, and the terminology should reflect that. It is not the same, as many have argued as white is different from black. There is no significant difference between a black man and a white man or a brown man for that matter. The colors of skin or cultural backgrounds are not major differences in human beings. However, men and women have significant differences both mentally and physically.  Hence there is a major difference between a male/female relationship and a male/male or female/female relationship.  Even if you believe that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, you must concede that the two are different by definition and therefore deserve different classifications.

To go a step further, Conservative Nationalist has proposed that we abolish all forms of public marriage being that it is a religious contract. Making laws pertaining to religious ceremony is unconstitutional according to the 1^st Amendment. Therefore, people of any kind wishing to join together in a civil union for commitment or legal purposes could do so. At the same time, people of faith could become wedded by their own church, outside the control of the government. We should leave marriage for the church, synagogue, or mosque. There is no need for government to legislate who can and cannot get married. That is an issue for the clergy and the deity to decide.   

By Chris Charles

If you live in California, there is an election tomorrow. This probably comes as news to many because there are no national elections involved. Most of the time these elections involve local city councils and other local measures that do not get wide spread notoriety. Tomorrow however, Californians will vote on 6 statewide measures that will have a major impact on the future of the state.

Now before those of you who live in any of the other 49 states stop reading, this concerns you too. Many other states are right behind California in their overspending, overtaxing, and gross incompetence. In fact, the US government is perhaps the biggest offender. The federal government has a 1.8 trillion dollar budget deficit. What would happen if you managed your own finances like government manages its own finances? Government leaders, for the most part, have no interest in fiscal responsibility, only in increasing their own power and wealth.

Here in California, for years the legislature and governors’ have mismanaged the state’s finances so badly it makes AIG look like the model for fiscal responsibility.  Public employee unions and special interest groups run rough shot over politicians in this state; most of politicians are indebted to these groups because they allow these “public servants” to retain their power and standard of living.

Here is how the scheme works;

1.       Special interests fund campaigns of politicians

2.       Politicians increase funding for programs that increase the wealth of these special interests

3.       Politicians raise taxes to pay for the spending or just borrow it

4.        Special interests finance the extravagant lifestyle of politicians

5.       Politicians increase funding even further for programs that benefit special interests

6.       Special interests finance the politician’s re-election

7.       Repeat…

Why don’t we vote their ass out of office? Because, many are fooled by the creative way in which politicians frame the debate and the rational for raising taxes. The debate is not a simple black and white issue. Most Californians and most Americans do not want higher taxes; in fact we want lower taxes. The electorate is told that, without higher taxes bad things will happen. Although they don’t even say that, they’ll say things like this…

We have a revenue problem; we cannot afford vital public services like firemen and police. 

If you do not want your child’s school to be closed you must fund it by voting for prop X.

We will increase the fee for registering your car so that we can improve our roads.

All of these are clever ways to raise your taxes. Hardly anybody is against funding for schools, police, firefighters, or road improvement. Politicians know that people want these services and so people will vote to increase “revenue”.

What they won’t tell you is that you already pay taxes for all of those things and more. They know that you would not approve the billions and billions spent on other things.  Even the most anti-tax conservative or libertarian will agree that taxes are needed, and government is needed for a small number of things, primarily public safety. So the politician uses this to instill fear in the hearts of unwitting citizens. They want you to think that if taxes are not raised, no one will answer if you dial 911.

Notice that there are never any ballot measures that raise taxes to fund the state commission to study tomato size. Nor do we ever vote for funding of entitlement programs. Most would welcome an up or down vote for increasing or decreasing the funding for every single state program. Guess what would happen, the important departments (fire, police, schools) would get more money. Wasteful or less important programs would get less money. It is as simple as that, we the people know that we must reign in this out of control spending but most holding political office only give this lip service, at most.

Politicians are reluctant to change because special interests “care” more than we do. They get politicians elected. They give them rides in private jets. They appoint them to lofty positions outside of government after they leave public office. They host elegant parties for them and so on. What do we do? A small number of us vote and an even smaller number of us vote for them. Average voter turnout for the last non-presidential general election was 40 percent. If you get only 21 % of the vote you can’t lose. Why would they care about the 80 percent of people that didn’t vote for them? Special interests also hold politicians accountable; they insure the politicians represent their own interests. Most of us pay little to no attention to what is really going on. Therefore, special interests become the golden goose of American politics, and we the people are just the fowl.

We must call the bluff of the politicians and special interest groups. We the people have the power with our vote to govern as we see fit. If legislatures cut important civil services, we can vote them out of office, game over. Professional politicians from both parties play on the ignorance of the majority it this country to take more and more power and money away from the people and give it to a few elite in government, business, and labor. They rely on our collective disinterest in politics and government. They count on the people of this state and of this country being fed up will political fighting so much that they can’t stand to hear it anymore. Because of this the very people we detest, dishonest politicians, maintain their power over us. Too many are unwilling to open their eyes to the corruption all around them, we all must stand up and say, enough. Enough political games, enough uncontrolled spending, enough voter apathy, enough special interest control over public policy. Enough.

So for those of you voting in California May 19^th, go do something about it. Props 1A through 1F will increase taxes, dishonestly using fear as a reason that one should vote in favor of these proposals. Do not allow dishonesty and ravenous spending to rule the day. We need fiscal responsibility and common sense from our representatives. We need to stand up to our elected officials and demand representation. Office holders represent we the people, we elect them, and we give them the power, not the special interest groups or organized labor. Lobbyists and labor do not get a vote, only individuals have the right to cast a ballot. We need to take back the power and control of government and insure that it remains a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

-Chris

By Chris Charles

Radio host Michael Savage has been banned from Airstrip One, uh I mean Great Britain.

George Orwell wrote about a future where “Big Brother” was all powerful. Where the “thought police” would arrest and torture people for holding dissenting views, where white was black and right was wrong, where truth was outlawed, where freedom was slavery and slavery was freedom.  Lucky for us his future vision never came to be. Most of the world embraced freedom and liberty and the real year 1984 was only a few years shy of the date the Soviet Union ceased to exist.  There are times however, when one looks at current events and might think that they are in an alternative universe where the Orwellian future has become reality.

Conservative radio host Michael Savage was banned from the UK last week.  British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released a list of 16 persons to be denied entry from the UK should they request it. Among the arbitrary the names of murders, terrorists and other undesirables was the name of Michael Savage. What was Savages’ crime? Murder? Rape? Terrorism? No, no, and no. Savage was banned for his political views. Just as in Orwell’s 1984 non-conformist thought (not to mention speech) was a crime. It appears that at least the latter is a crime in the once Great Britain. Even more alarming is who is not on the list of banned persons. Do you think that there are only 15 dangerous people that could cause harm to Britain in the whole world? If the Home Secretary is concerned with the safety and well-being of her country, perhaps she should ban some trouble makers already within her own borders. Such as the Muslim immigrants who are followers of Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad.  Bakri, now living in Lebanon has called for a Muslim revolution in Britain saying “Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. We will not rest until flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street.”  There are hundreds, if not thousands of Bakri followers residing within the UK but Jacqui Smith will not go after those that pose a threat to her country, she will go after a talk show host half a world away whose broadcast does not even reach the shores of the UK.

The UK does not have our constitution that protects freedom of speech, although right here in America a person is being persecuted for her beliefs. Reigning Miss California and Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean was asked a question by a judge during the competition which she answered honestly. She has since been subjected to the worst kind of hatred from people who simply disagree with her position. A question was asked by openly gay blogger Perez Hilton as to what her opinion was on prop 8 and gay marriage. Prejean responded politely and honestly, she just had the wrong opinion. Again, the liberal “thought police” were out for blood.  Needless to say, she did not win the competition. She was called terrible names by the judge who asked the question, her past was gone through with a fine tooth comb looking for any evidence of imperfection. A steady stream of vile has flowed from media outlets ever since, as if supporting traditional marriage meant  that she was making herself out to be “holier than thou”.

 Most liberals strongly support the first amendment when it comes to wars, flag burning, or abortion.  Just so long as the free speech does not conflict with the liberal agenda, if it does it is hate speech, and the person espousing such views should become the scourge of our society. As in 1984 “thought criminals” are sometimes forced to admit their crimes and repent for their actions. In 1984 “thought criminals” were tortured by the thought police until they admitted their treachery. In the present day those that draw their ire are tortured in the media until they succumb and admit to their crimes and beg for forgiveness.   

In Orwell’s 1984 there was the principle of “double think” which was the ability to know something and not know something simultaneously. Back in our own universe we have a president and a congress (who are trusted to maintain the well-being of the country) granting rights to our worst enemies and coming after the people who have fought these enemies and kept the country safe for the past eight years. All the while they call it patriotic and righteous to do so. We live in increasingly upside down world, where right is wrong and the wrong is right.

The same people who fight for a woman’s right to choose, simultaneously oppose the death penalty for the worst criminals in society.  

Labor unions are given stock in companies that they helped force into bankruptcy.  

The president says that he will not appoint lobbyists to posts within his administration, and then he proceeds to appoint lobbyists to posts within his administration.

When the president declares his view opposing gay marriage, it is known that he does not believe this. He is only saying what most Americans want to hear. When an average citizen donates money to a pro-traditional marriage campaign, their restaurant is boycotted and she is denounced as a hater, and homophobic.

An organization that calls for political reform is charged with voter fraud in several states.

The White House proposes budget cuts to reduce our 1.8 trillion dollar budget deficit; the cuts are then re-directed to other programs and not used to reduce the debt.

The White House press corps remains seated when then President Bush enters the briefing room, a few weeks later when current President Obama enters the same room, all stand up out of respect for the office.

Teachers are above reproach because they teach and nurture our children. When a teacher encourages a student to commit suicide he is not fired because he is a member of the teachers union, and teachers are above reproach.

The word liberal means open-minded with a laissez-faire attitude toward government, however liberals enact the most oppressive legislation if given the chance.  There governing style is more totalitarian than liberal. They support big government that intrudes in to the lives of its citizens. They say that they are tolerant and open to differing opinion. Then they pass a law that says you must be tolerant, and open to differing opinion. This is not hypocrisy it is “orthodox” liberal, because a true liberal can support something and then not support the same thing without consciousness of doing so.

-Chris