Geico and Combe repeat sponsors of FX's 'Dirt'

Dear Chairman,

I am repulsed by the graphic and offensive nature of FX Network's program "Dirt."

I am also aware that your company is a frequent sponsor of this show.

Aligning your company with graphic sex scenes and horid language on television shows at a time when children are likely to be watching is irresponsible.

Please contact your marketing department and order them to pull all ads from FX Network's "Dirt."

I would appreciate a positive response to my request.

Bennett Amendment No. 20 to S. 1

Please vote YES on the Bennett Amendment No. 20 to S. 1, the "lobbying reform" bill.

The Bennett Amendment is absolutely necessary to protect our right to learn about what is happening in Congress on issues that are important to us, and to communicate with elected representatives about important issues.

HR254: Enhancement of Federal Enforcement of Hate Crimes

It came to my attention that the House Judiciary Committee has begun consideration of Rep Lee's bill, H.R.254, that seeks to establish a new federal offense for hate crimes and would mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses tried under its provisions that includes a sentence of life imprisonment.

I oppose ambiguous "hate-crime" laws because they do not provide equal protection of all Americans as the U.S. Constitution demands. Law-enforcement should instead focus on punishing crimes and criminal behavior, not thoughts.

Criminal laws already on the books are not being enforced. Creating new laws will do nothing but make a bad situation worse.

Victims of violence can best be served by the justice system enforcing existing laws and returning to a focus on delivering justice for the victims instead of leniency on the criminals.

H&R Block sponsors anti-Christian Wife Swap

Dear Mr. Iverson:

Last year you apologized for advertising on "The Book of Daniel" and stated that you would continue to advertise in a responsible way.

Well, a new tax season has begun and one of the first shows that you advertised on was "Wife Swap" which featured sexually explicit themes, including scenes of pole-dancing parties and strip clubs.

In addition, Christian values were mocked and the Bible, which many of your customers hold sacred, was mocked and was thrown into a garbage can.

We expect better of H&R Block.

If you continue empowering this kind of programming through your sponsorship, we couldn't even begin to consider having our taxes done by an H&R Block agency.

Is this what we can expect from you? Please let me hear from you.

Petition to Protect Military Prayer

The Honorable President George W. Bush

Military chaplains have served our nation faithfully for well over 200 years. Many have suffered and some have even died in the line of duty. Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform have benefited greatly by having the full and free ministry of chaplains available to them. To censor the prayers of chaplains in their ministry to our servicemen and women is an outrage; yet this is an immediate possibility unless action is taken to protect our chaplains from such restrictions. Unfortunately, there are strong forces at work in our country which would advocate such restrictions.

We respectfully request that you, as Commander-in-Chief, direct the Secretary of Defense to issue new regulations to protect the constitutional right of military chaplains to pray according to their faith.

Support the amendment to strike Section 220 of S. 1.

I understand that an amendment has been introduced to remove an extremely troubling provision in S. 1, a bill you and your colleagues are now debating. I can't emphasize to you enough my hope that you will support this amendment -- and support my right to free speech.

As I understand it, the provision in question -- Section 220 -- would place severe restrictions on my right to hear from groups I trust about what is going on in Congress. Because these groups be subject to fines of $100,000 for not complying with the miles of red tape the bill mandates, I am greatly concerned they will simply stop providing me with information I need to know about legislation that affects me.

I applaud your efforts to clean up the unethical activity of some lobbyists on Capitol Hill -- but those are not the kinds of lobbyists being targeted by Section 220. People like me are the ones being targeted.

So, please vote for the Bennett amendment to strip the unfair grassroots-lobbying provisions in S.1. Anything less would be allowing a muzzle to be placed on the very men and women who put you in office.

S. 1: Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress Act of 2007

I have just heard about an unacceptable provision in S. 1, a bill you and your colleagues are expected to consider sometime next week. While I know much of what the ethics bill aims to do is needed and even welcome, Section 220 is terribly disturbing to me.

As I understand it, this provision would place severe restrictions on my right to hear from groups I trust about what is going on in Congress. These groups would be subject to fines of $100,000 for not complying with the miles of red tape the bill mandates; I am greatly concerned they will simply stop providing me with information I need to know about legislation that affects my family.

Don't misunderstand me. I applaud any effort to clean up the unethical activity of some lobbyists on Capitol Hill -- but those are not the kinds of lobbyists being targeted by Section 220. Those being targeted are everyday Americans like me.

We will not stand for a curtailing of our free-speech rights. Please keep that in mind as you consider S. 1 -- and act to remove Section 220 that seeks to silence the very men and women who put you in office.

Patients Right to Know

Please sponsor and support legislation this term to ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.

HR 3: Federal funding of research that uses human embryos

I strongly oppose the DeGette bill, H.R. 3. I ask you to vote against H.R. 3.

Embryonic stem cell research is legal. H.R. 3 will overturn President Bush’s policy on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research by forcing taxpayers to pay for research that requires the killing of human embryos. Adult stem cells are treating numerous diseases in animals and in humans. Yet, embryonic stem cell research has not been used to treat a single disease. H.R. 3 will create a financial incentive for researchers to create and kill human embryos for their stem cells, despite the fact that they have produced no cures.

Please oppose H.R. 3, and instead, support funding for ethical alternatives such as adult stem cell research.

Embryonic Stem-Cell research

Sacrificing human life for scientific research -- and using our tax dollars to do it -- is unacceptable.

Please vote AGAINST human embryonic stem-cell research.

There are more reliable alternatives such as using Umbilical Cord and Adult Stem Cells that do not require unethical destruction of human life. Please sponsor and support legislation that promotes alternatives to unethical research.

Pls concentrate on business and not cultural experimentation

Dear CEO Mulally,

I regret that Ford has made the decision to continue supporting the homosexual agenda, including same sex marriage.

I will not be purchasing a Ford product and I will share this information with others.

When Ford takes the stance that Wal-Mart took and remains neutral in the homosexual cultural war, I will reconsider.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Please do NOT support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or any similar legislation.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has been re-introduced in Congress with wording that would prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation”.

Legislation such as this would destroy our rights to freedom of speech, religion and association. It will also open the floodgates for frivolous lawsuits and government control of private businesses.

- It would turn groups like the Boy Scouts into targets of federally funded lawsuits.

- Be a major expansion of federal power over the workplace and create a new way for the government to manipulate employers.

- Make people’s sexual temptations a source of material for federal lawsuits. The law should deal with actions, not beliefs.

- The government would go on record supporting the practice of having sex with more than one person. This is a direct challenge to laws designed to protect marriage.

- The U.S. government would be placing people with traditional views of morality into opposition to their own government.

- Prohibit employers from taking into account destructive sexual conduct in the hiring of education and child care worker positions.

- Afford special protections to an already privileged group. Statistically, homosexuals do not qualify as a bona fide minority group, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Homosexuals are not defined by an immutable characteristic, they are not economically deprived, nor do they suffer from a history of discrimination and political powerlessness.

- Change national policy by forcing the government to abandon support for marriage – the bedrock of every healthy society. By declaring traditional morality regarding sexuality as a form of “discrimination,” ENDA will undermine the special status of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

- Lead to further demands by homosexual activists to force others to celebrate abnormal and unhealthy sexual behavior. Many corporations that adopted “sexual orientation” policies soon found themselves besieged by demands for outright “gay pride” celebrations. Anything less than open promotion is regarded by many homosexual activists as “discriminatory.”

- The bill utterly ignores freedom of conscience for individuals

- Although there is a world of difference between skin color and sexual behavior, liberal courts are likely to blur the distinction and to regard traditional morality as a form of “bigotry.”


Current national policy is committed to upholding and supporting marriage and family. ENDA would initiate an inevitable assault on marriage as “discriminatory” and further weaken efforts to restore marriage to its societal primacy.

ENDA will inspire lawsuits by homosexual activists, who will cry “homophobia” when an employer cleaves to policies that favor marriage, family and traditional sexual morality.

http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2578&department=CFI&categoryid=papers