| JIM BRIDENSTINE 1st District, Oklahoma |  | 216 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2211 | |
| July 22, 2016 | |||
| Dear Mr. *******, Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 5611, the Homeland Safety and Security Act. I value your opinion and appreciate the time you took to contact me. Rep. Kevin McCarthy introduced H.R. 5611 on July 1, 2016. This legislation is aimed at preventing terrorists from attacking the United States and obtaining passports. If enacted, the bill would do the following: · Establish within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the Office for Partnerships to Prevent Terrorism (OPPT) to coordinate DHS efforts to prevent terrorism and radicalization associated with Islamist terrorist networks. · Allow the Department of Justice (DOJ) to delay for up to three business days firearm or explosive sales to persons listed on the federal terrorism or no-fly watch lists as a known or suspected terrorist (or those so listed in the last five years). · Direct the FBI to annually review the terrorist screening database to determine whether the identity of each listed individual is correct. · Prevent the State Department from issuing a passport to, and revoke a passport from, any individual who is affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization or who has aided, abetted, or given material support to such an organization. While H.R. 5611 includes some good provisions to strengthen our homeland security against Islamist terrorism, I am opposed to the bill in its current form. First, the bill does nothing that addresses the root causes of homegrown terrorism. Second, the bill infringes upon both the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and Fifth Amendment due process protections. H.R. 5611 gives the Attorney General unilateral power to deny Second Amendment rights based on inclusion on the Terrorist Watch List. This list has proved error-prone and unreliable, having erroneously included law-abiding citizens and even members of Congress in the past. While this gun control proposal may be well-meaning, it is misguided. Additional gun control measures will fail to solve the problem of Islamist terrorism and the type of violence perpetrated in Orlando, San Bernardino, and Ft. Hood. The real issue is that ISIS and other Islamist terror organizations have declared war against the United States, Israel, Europe, and Western civilization in general. Instead of pivoting to politically-motivated attacks on the Second Amendment, Congress should stop accepting unknown refugees from high-risk, terror-prone countries, deport foreigners suspected of terrorism, reverse the Obama Administration's politically correct "countering violent extremism" policies, secure the southern border, and revoke the citizenship of convicted terrorists who are U.S. citizens. Pushing gun control and validating constitutionally dubious secret watch lists is the wrong path. I will continue my efforts to concurrently protect the Second Amendment and take real steps toward keeping Americans safe from Islamist extremist terrorism. | |||
| |||
| Please click the following links to follow me on Facebook or Twitter, and click here to sign up for my E-Newsletter. | |||
Monday, July 25, 2016
Response to Inquiry about HR 5611 Homeland Safety and Security Act
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
ABC-Disney producer's stated goal is to normalize sodomy
Executive producer Adam Horowitz tells EW. “Our goal is to make it as we see it in the real world, just as normal and as a part of every day life as it should be.”
(warning, links to articles contain offensive pictures)
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/20/once-upon-time-lgbt-relationship
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/04/17/once-upon-time-lgbt-ruby-red-dorothy-mulan-spoilers
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/alexa-moutevelis-coombs/2016/04/18/disneys-family-friendly-once-upon-time-airs-lesbian
ABC's "Once Upon a Time" introduced a lesbian couple during this week's episode which 1MM and parents find completely unnecessary. On the other hand, the producers said the inclusion of homosexuality in a show popular with kids was "important." Many families watch the program based on beloved children's fairytales, but unfortunately, ABC has distorted and twisted the storylines in these fables.
In Sunday's (April 17) episode, named "Ruby Slippers," classic fairytale characters continue to push the envelope as Ruby from "Little Red Riding Hood" and Dorothy from "The Wizard of Oz" lock lips and introduce the show's first LGBTQ couple.
In a series of flashbacks, a romance brews between the two women. A sleeping curse leads Ruby to bestow true love's kiss on Dorothy to wake her. One kiss breaks the spell, but many follow in a brief make out session as the munchkins from Oz watch.
"Once Upon a Time" is a far from innocent fairytale entangling favorite Disney characters in a new, modern storyline. When it debuted in 2011 it was called "the most family-friendly drama on any broadcast network in the past ten years" and Common Sense Media rated it for children 12 and up.
So naturally, with its family-friendly 8:00 pm ET/7:00 pm CT Sunday night time slot, it attracts younger viewers and parents who still think of Disney as wholesome. Of course, 1MM knows that Disney has not been wholesome for some time and, once again, they are purposefully pushing a gay agenda.
"True Love's kiss has been a staple of this show since the beginning. This past Sunday's episode was just another example of how in a fairytale, as in life, love is love," co-creators Adam Horowitz and Eddy Kitsis said in a statement about the LGBTQ storyline. Horowitz added that the storyline will be as "exciting, emotional, and heartfelt as any other love story."
"Once Upon a Time's" executive producers have also said their gay advocacy is "important to do" and something that needs to be "normalized," not "marginalized." Last year, when hinting the coming storyline, they said, "It (the LGBTQ relationship) is something we think is due and important to do on the show. This is the world we live in." The producers repeated the mantra "love is love" and again admitted that their goal was to normalize and push gay relationships "as a part of everyday life."
Homosexuality continues to be over-represented in the media because producers want people, and especially kids, to think it's normal and everyday life. In reality, that is their fairytale.
TAKE ACTION:
http://onemillionmoms.com/current-campaigns/lesbian-kiss-in-once-upon-a-time/
(warning, links to articles contain offensive pictures)
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/20/once-upon-time-lgbt-relationship
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/04/17/once-upon-time-lgbt-ruby-red-dorothy-mulan-spoilers
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/alexa-moutevelis-coombs/2016/04/18/disneys-family-friendly-once-upon-time-airs-lesbian
ABC's "Once Upon a Time" introduced a lesbian couple during this week's episode which 1MM and parents find completely unnecessary. On the other hand, the producers said the inclusion of homosexuality in a show popular with kids was "important." Many families watch the program based on beloved children's fairytales, but unfortunately, ABC has distorted and twisted the storylines in these fables.
In Sunday's (April 17) episode, named "Ruby Slippers," classic fairytale characters continue to push the envelope as Ruby from "Little Red Riding Hood" and Dorothy from "The Wizard of Oz" lock lips and introduce the show's first LGBTQ couple.
In a series of flashbacks, a romance brews between the two women. A sleeping curse leads Ruby to bestow true love's kiss on Dorothy to wake her. One kiss breaks the spell, but many follow in a brief make out session as the munchkins from Oz watch.
"Once Upon a Time" is a far from innocent fairytale entangling favorite Disney characters in a new, modern storyline. When it debuted in 2011 it was called "the most family-friendly drama on any broadcast network in the past ten years" and Common Sense Media rated it for children 12 and up.
So naturally, with its family-friendly 8:00 pm ET/7:00 pm CT Sunday night time slot, it attracts younger viewers and parents who still think of Disney as wholesome. Of course, 1MM knows that Disney has not been wholesome for some time and, once again, they are purposefully pushing a gay agenda.
"True Love's kiss has been a staple of this show since the beginning. This past Sunday's episode was just another example of how in a fairytale, as in life, love is love," co-creators Adam Horowitz and Eddy Kitsis said in a statement about the LGBTQ storyline. Horowitz added that the storyline will be as "exciting, emotional, and heartfelt as any other love story."
"Once Upon a Time's" executive producers have also said their gay advocacy is "important to do" and something that needs to be "normalized," not "marginalized." Last year, when hinting the coming storyline, they said, "It (the LGBTQ relationship) is something we think is due and important to do on the show. This is the world we live in." The producers repeated the mantra "love is love" and again admitted that their goal was to normalize and push gay relationships "as a part of everyday life."
Homosexuality continues to be over-represented in the media because producers want people, and especially kids, to think it's normal and everyday life. In reality, that is their fairytale.
TAKE ACTION:
http://onemillionmoms.com/current-campaigns/lesbian-kiss-in-once-upon-a-time/
Friday, June 20, 2014
Rand Paul Offers Amendment to Stop Eric Holder’s Operation Choke Point
A few weeks ago, we told you about “Operation Choke Point” -- an effort by Attorney General Eric Holder to put gun stores out of business.
The good news is this: Senator Rand Paul has just filed an amendment to the Science Justice Commerce Appropriations bill which will cut off Obama’s efforts to shut down gun stores by drying up their credit.
The Paul language is Amendment 3292 to H.R. 4660.
The appropriations bill is currently on the floor, but we expect the Paul amendment to be considered Friday or Tuesday. If adopted, the Obama administration would be barred from attempting to cut off credit to guns stores – just because they sell guns.
ACTION: Contact your Senators. Demand that they vote for the Paul amendment.
Sample Letter:
In connection with the Science Justice Commerce Appropriations Bill, Senator Rand Paul will offer an amendment to curtail "Operation Choke Point" - an effort by Attorney General Eric Holder to put gun stores out of business by shutting off their credit.
Basically, it works like this: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), at the behest of Barack Obama, has declared that gun stores are "high risk" businesses. "High risk" businesses have been, up until now, a small category of supposedly disreputable businesses, which have included pornographers, sellers of drug paraphernalia, and payday lenders.
The second step in the process is Eric Holder's Justice Department's "Operation Choke Point." And its function is specifically to choke off any credit or credit card processing for businesses (now including gun dealers) who fall in the "high risk" category.
Already, scores of gun dealers have complained that their banks have cut their credit or otherwise put pressure on them. Three articles detailing this effort to shut down gun dealers may be found here, here and here.
The good news is this: Senator Rand Paul has just filed an amendment to the Science Justice Commerce Appropriations bill which will cut off Obama's efforts to shut down gun stores by drying up their credit. The Paul language is Amendment 3292 to H.R. 4660.
The appropriations bill is currently on the floor, but we expect the Paul amendment to be considered Friday or Tuesday. If adopted, the Obama administration would be barred from attempting to cut off credit to guns stores - just because they sell guns.
http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/bill/421616
The good news is this: Senator Rand Paul has just filed an amendment to the Science Justice Commerce Appropriations bill which will cut off Obama’s efforts to shut down gun stores by drying up their credit.
The Paul language is Amendment 3292 to H.R. 4660.
The appropriations bill is currently on the floor, but we expect the Paul amendment to be considered Friday or Tuesday. If adopted, the Obama administration would be barred from attempting to cut off credit to guns stores – just because they sell guns.
ACTION: Contact your Senators. Demand that they vote for the Paul amendment.
Sample Letter:
In connection with the Science Justice Commerce Appropriations Bill, Senator Rand Paul will offer an amendment to curtail "Operation Choke Point" - an effort by Attorney General Eric Holder to put gun stores out of business by shutting off their credit.
Basically, it works like this: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), at the behest of Barack Obama, has declared that gun stores are "high risk" businesses. "High risk" businesses have been, up until now, a small category of supposedly disreputable businesses, which have included pornographers, sellers of drug paraphernalia, and payday lenders.
The second step in the process is Eric Holder's Justice Department's "Operation Choke Point." And its function is specifically to choke off any credit or credit card processing for businesses (now including gun dealers) who fall in the "high risk" category.
Already, scores of gun dealers have complained that their banks have cut their credit or otherwise put pressure on them. Three articles detailing this effort to shut down gun dealers may be found here, here and here.
The good news is this: Senator Rand Paul has just filed an amendment to the Science Justice Commerce Appropriations bill which will cut off Obama's efforts to shut down gun stores by drying up their credit. The Paul language is Amendment 3292 to H.R. 4660.
The appropriations bill is currently on the floor, but we expect the Paul amendment to be considered Friday or Tuesday. If adopted, the Obama administration would be barred from attempting to cut off credit to guns stores - just because they sell guns.
http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/bill/421616
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Mennonite pastor who helped girl escape lesbian ‘mother’ sent to jail for refusing to testify
Mennonite pastor who helped girl escape lesbian ‘mother’ sent to jail for refusing to testify
January 25, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - "I have time for just a short note," Mennonite pastor Kenneth Miller to his supporters as he awaited his inevitable arrest yesterday, "'...Whom having not seen ye love, though now ye see Him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.' (1 Pet. 1:8-9) He is risen. His Kingdom reigns forever. All is well."
Hours later, Miller faced federal judge William Sessions III, and informed him that he would not testify before a grand jury against several acquaintances accused of helping the pastor arrange for the escape of Lisa Miller and her daughter, Isabella, from the United States in 2009. According to the Burlington Free Press, Kenneth Miller told the judge that testifying would be inconsistent with his religious beliefs.
BRAVO PASTOR!!
"Mistresses" desensitizes our society to adultry
To: Media.Inquiries@ChurchDwight.com,marketing@t-mobile.com,chturner@pier1.com,macarter@pier1.com,customerservice@pfizer.com,Joan.Chow@ConAgraFoods.com
As a parent and father, I strongly encourage your company to drop all plans of financially supporting the inappropriate ABC program "Mistresses" which airs on Monday evenings at 10:00 p.m. ET/9:00 CT. This show is degrading to women and damaging to our culture.
I am appalled that your company is sponsoring a show that displays affairs and casual sex, often with multiple partners, as normal and acceptable behavior. ABC's "Mistresses" is attempting to desensitize our society and our children.
While your company is a household name, I do not agree with your financial backing of this program. Not only is this program insulting to conservative viewers and traditional families, but it also focuses on infidelity and adultery.
As a consumer, I am asking you to please pull your ad immediately, and to support moral values and family-friendly programming instead. My decision to support your company depends on it.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding my concern.
http://onemillionmoms.com/
As a parent and father, I strongly encourage your company to drop all plans of financially supporting the inappropriate ABC program "Mistresses" which airs on Monday evenings at 10:00 p.m. ET/9:00 CT. This show is degrading to women and damaging to our culture.
I am appalled that your company is sponsoring a show that displays affairs and casual sex, often with multiple partners, as normal and acceptable behavior. ABC's "Mistresses" is attempting to desensitize our society and our children.
While your company is a household name, I do not agree with your financial backing of this program. Not only is this program insulting to conservative viewers and traditional families, but it also focuses on infidelity and adultery.
As a consumer, I am asking you to please pull your ad immediately, and to support moral values and family-friendly programming instead. My decision to support your company depends on it.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding my concern.
http://onemillionmoms.com/
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
NBC’s gruesome Hannibal – advertisers need to hear from you!
Your advertisement on "Hannibal" promotes dangerous ideas and disturbing violence, especially in light of the recent shootings that have been on the national conscience. Do you really want to encourage empathizing with psychopathic killers and cannibals? That is the premise of NBC's "Hannibal."
Consider what the Daily Beast had to say about this repulsive show. " All of this talent and effort to burnish a (and let’s face it, that’s what he is here) hero who maims, kills, and eats people (most of them female) while feeling nothing regarding their suffering: ick, to use the shortest, most polite word."
The Salt Lake Tribune calls Hannibal “one of the most violent, bloody shows on TV.”
I strongly urge you to pull yoursponsorship of “Hannibal.” I will be following the advertising results to see whether or not your company empowers this show in the future. If you do, you will lose my business and that of thousands of others who are greatly concerned about the impact of such sickening themes upon our families and the American culture.
You have a choice, obviously, in where you place your advertising dollars. I, too, have a choice in the companies I support with my patronage. Please do the right thing and choose a more deserving and life-affirming show on which to advertise.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Bono and the Gospel
RE: U2 and Bono
I appreciate your program and ministry. I recently viewed the Prophecy In The News program 06/25 Bono and the Gospel with Gary Stearman.
In this program the interview with Bono by Focus on the Family was referenced. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/june/bono-interview-with-focus-on-family-jim-daly.html)
I definitely agree that it was a good quote from Bono concerning his belief that Jesus was the Son of God and it would be good for that to be spread around.
I urge you to research U2 and Bono's background. There is a very good documentary by Joe Schimmel (http://www.goodfight.org/store/resources_video_tsc.html) called the Submerging Church and a bonus DVD called "THE EMERGENT CHURCH AND THE BONO-SCREWTAPE CONNECTION".
It includes actual footage of interviews and concerts that make it clear that Bono is a deliberate wolf in sheep's clothing.
While Bono does well to make this profession, even the devils profess this (Luke 4:41).
Thank you, and keep up the good work in spreading the truth.
BACKGROUND INFO
Bono may seem to have the right words to say, but it seems Jim Daly hasn't
asked the right questions. "Bono's anti-poverty foundation ONE is under pressure
to explain its finances after it was revealed that only a small percentage of money
it raises reaches the needy. The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman
received almost £9.6million in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 to
good causes (1.2 per cent). The figures published by the New York Post also show
that £5.1million went towards paying salaries" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314543/Bonos-ONE-foundation-giving-tiny-percentage-funds-charity.html#ixzz2XExWAEyC).
Or, consider the following excerpts from "The Rock Group U2," by David Cloud, http://www.wayoflife.org:
"In an interview with Joseph Schimmel, Chris Row of Shalom Fellowship, Bono's former
pastor in Ireland, said that Bono, Evans, and Mullen chose rock & roll over the
Bible. He said that when Bono flew him to Los Angeles to perform his marriage, he
wasn't allowed to go backstage at a U2 concert because they didn't want him to see
the things that went on there (Schimmel, The Submerging Church, 2012, DVD).
"Of sexual activity, Bono says: "You know, if you tell people that the best place
to have [expletive deleted] is in the safe hands of a loving relationship, you may
be telling a lie! There may be other places' (Flanagan, U2 at the End of the World,
p. 83).
"Bill Flanagan, a U2 friend who has traveled extensively with the group, in his
authorized biography describes them as heavy drinkers and constant visitors to bars,
brothels, and nightclubs. He says, 'If I wanted to I could fill up hundreds of pages
with this sort of three-sheets-to-the-wind [drunken], navel-gazing dialogue between
U2 and me' (Flanagan, U2 at the End of the World, p. 145). Bono admits that he lives
'a fairly decadent kind of selfish-art-oriented lifestyle' (Flanagan, p. 79).
"In 2006 Bono said: 'I recently read in one of St. Paul's letters where it describes
all of the fruits of the spirit, and I had none of them' ("Enough Rope with Andrew
Denton," March 13, 2006).
"In October 2008, Fox News reported that Bono and rocker friend Simon Carmody partied
with teenage girls on a yacht in St. Tropez. The report, which was accompanied by
a photo of Bono holding two bikini-clad teenagers on his lap at a bar, said, 'Bono,
Carmody and the girls partied into the night on the yacht' ("Facebook Pictures Show
Married U2 Singer Bono's Rendezvous with Sexy Teens," Fox News, Oct. 27, 2008).]
I appreciate your program and ministry. I recently viewed the Prophecy In The News program 06/25 Bono and the Gospel with Gary Stearman.
In this program the interview with Bono by Focus on the Family was referenced. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/june/bono-interview-with-focus-on-family-jim-daly.html)
I definitely agree that it was a good quote from Bono concerning his belief that Jesus was the Son of God and it would be good for that to be spread around.
I urge you to research U2 and Bono's background. There is a very good documentary by Joe Schimmel (http://www.goodfight.org/store/resources_video_tsc.html) called the Submerging Church and a bonus DVD called "THE EMERGENT CHURCH AND THE BONO-SCREWTAPE CONNECTION".
It includes actual footage of interviews and concerts that make it clear that Bono is a deliberate wolf in sheep's clothing.
While Bono does well to make this profession, even the devils profess this (Luke 4:41).
Thank you, and keep up the good work in spreading the truth.
BACKGROUND INFO
Bono may seem to have the right words to say, but it seems Jim Daly hasn't
asked the right questions. "Bono's anti-poverty foundation ONE is under pressure
to explain its finances after it was revealed that only a small percentage of money
it raises reaches the needy. The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman
received almost £9.6million in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 to
good causes (1.2 per cent). The figures published by the New York Post also show
that £5.1million went towards paying salaries" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314543/Bonos-ONE-foundation-giving-tiny-percentage-funds-charity.html#ixzz2XExWAEyC).
Or, consider the following excerpts from "The Rock Group U2," by David Cloud, http://www.wayoflife.org:
"In an interview with Joseph Schimmel, Chris Row of Shalom Fellowship, Bono's former
pastor in Ireland, said that Bono, Evans, and Mullen chose rock & roll over the
Bible. He said that when Bono flew him to Los Angeles to perform his marriage, he
wasn't allowed to go backstage at a U2 concert because they didn't want him to see
the things that went on there (Schimmel, The Submerging Church, 2012, DVD).
"Of sexual activity, Bono says: "You know, if you tell people that the best place
to have [expletive deleted] is in the safe hands of a loving relationship, you may
be telling a lie! There may be other places' (Flanagan, U2 at the End of the World,
p. 83).
"Bill Flanagan, a U2 friend who has traveled extensively with the group, in his
authorized biography describes them as heavy drinkers and constant visitors to bars,
brothels, and nightclubs. He says, 'If I wanted to I could fill up hundreds of pages
with this sort of three-sheets-to-the-wind [drunken], navel-gazing dialogue between
U2 and me' (Flanagan, U2 at the End of the World, p. 145). Bono admits that he lives
'a fairly decadent kind of selfish-art-oriented lifestyle' (Flanagan, p. 79).
"In 2006 Bono said: 'I recently read in one of St. Paul's letters where it describes
all of the fruits of the spirit, and I had none of them' ("Enough Rope with Andrew
Denton," March 13, 2006).
"In October 2008, Fox News reported that Bono and rocker friend Simon Carmody partied
with teenage girls on a yacht in St. Tropez. The report, which was accompanied by
a photo of Bono holding two bikini-clad teenagers on his lap at a bar, said, 'Bono,
Carmody and the girls partied into the night on the yacht' ("Facebook Pictures Show
Married U2 Singer Bono's Rendezvous with Sexy Teens," Fox News, Oct. 27, 2008).]
Thursday, September 20, 2012
NBC's 'New Normal'
As a corporation that has chosen to sponsor the NBC television show “The New Normal,” I’m outraged by your support of a show that not only crosses the line with offensive, lewd verbiage and sexual imagery, but also pushes the gay agenda, while it offensively labels those who hold traditional values as bigoted homophobes.
Millions of Americans hold views regarding the gay agenda and same sex marriage that differ from the opinions pushed by Hollywood elites. This is made clearly obvious by the voters in dozens of states from the east coast to the west who have overwhelmingly upheld traditional marriage.
“The New Normal” blatantly mocks me and those millions of Americans by labeling us as “intolerant haters” when in fact the message you sponsor through this show is one of hate and intolerance toward those of us who hold a different viewpoint regarding the gay agenda.
Do you really want your company name associated with a show that mocks and offends millions of potential customers? If you continue to sponsor “The New Normal” I will do my best to tell my family and friends to include you on their “no shop” list.
I look forward to your response.
http://americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1380
Millions of Americans hold views regarding the gay agenda and same sex marriage that differ from the opinions pushed by Hollywood elites. This is made clearly obvious by the voters in dozens of states from the east coast to the west who have overwhelmingly upheld traditional marriage.
“The New Normal” blatantly mocks me and those millions of Americans by labeling us as “intolerant haters” when in fact the message you sponsor through this show is one of hate and intolerance toward those of us who hold a different viewpoint regarding the gay agenda.
Do you really want your company name associated with a show that mocks and offends millions of potential customers? If you continue to sponsor “The New Normal” I will do my best to tell my family and friends to include you on their “no shop” list.
I look forward to your response.
http://americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1380
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Hardee's at it again
Dear Mr. Puzder:
I am appalled at your new Hardee’s commercial and its representation of your views regarding women and pornography.
This graphic, raunchy advertisement degrades women, is an assault upon families, and is not welcome in my home.
There are many others like me who don’t appreciate companies that promote illicit sex. While you continue to use crude and offensive advertising ploys, many of your competitors choose not to degrade women and push the envelope of taste and decency in the way they advertise. That speaks volumes to me.
Please let me know when your advertising standards have improved, and then I will decide whether or not I will again make your restaurants a dining choice.
I am appalled at your new Hardee’s commercial and its representation of your views regarding women and pornography.
This graphic, raunchy advertisement degrades women, is an assault upon families, and is not welcome in my home.
There are many others like me who don’t appreciate companies that promote illicit sex. While you continue to use crude and offensive advertising ploys, many of your competitors choose not to degrade women and push the envelope of taste and decency in the way they advertise. That speaks volumes to me.
Please let me know when your advertising standards have improved, and then I will decide whether or not I will again make your restaurants a dining choice.
http://americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1343
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
General Mills announces support for gay ‘marriage’
americansfortruth.com
Remember when Big Business was conservative and was protested by hippies and leftists? Well now, socially speaking, corporate titans are siding with the Left against historic Judeo-Christian values – and God-fearing Christians and Jews are chiding the soulless, capitalist sellouts. The latest Behemoth to kick the Creator to the curb is General Mills — seemingly right up there with apple pie and motherhood as a symbol of American wholesomeness, but no more.
General Mills is maker of these iconic breakfast cereals:
Cheerios
Chex
Cinnamon Toast Crunch
Fiber One
Kix
Lucky Charms
Monsters
Total
Trix
Wheaties
In bowing to the revolutionary, homosexualist redefinition of marriage, the cereal giant has had to re-invent morality itself. Thus it employs the same sanctimonious Diversity Doublespeak as all social leftists who — no matter what destructive policies they pursue — pat themselves on the back for being on the side of “progress.” How telling that a company like General Mills is now serving up the pablum of “inclusion” to justify its immoral turn.
General Mills boasts that its goal “is to be among the most socially responsible food companies in the world.” Memo to General Mills: promoting homosexuality (linked disproportionately to disease and dysfunction) as normative behavior – to the point of undermining natural marriage — is not “socially responsible” but rather the opposite, even though it earns plaudits from the usual morally-challenged suspects. (See this biased “Wikipedia” entry which, sounding like a press release for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, notes that General Mills “received positive feedback for its stand [against the Minnesota marrriage amendment] which is expected to attract people to its global workforce.”)
Apparently General Mills’ executives, like those at Starbuck’s and other mega-corporations, are betting that more American consumers are FOR the sexual sin of homosexuality than against it. Time will tell if they are right, but regardless, corporate profits do not dictate moral Truth.
There are now far too many pro-homosexuality major corporations for us to declare this offender versus that offender a boycott target — so pro-family consumers can make their own purchasing choices. As for me, I will hesitate before buying a box of Wheaties or Cheerios, if only to strike a small, lonely blow for what’s right.
Bye Bye Cheerios?: General Mills announces support for gay ‘marriage’
By Thaddeus Baklinski
ST. PAUL, Minnesota, June 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Minnesota-based food giant General Mills has publicly come out in opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Minnesota.
Currently same-sex “marriage” is against the law in Minnesota. However, in November, Minnesotans will vote on the amendment which would insert the true definition of marriage in the state constitution…
According to a post put up Thursday, June 14 on the General Mills company blog by Ken Charles, vice president of global diversity and inclusion, “General Mills CEO Ken Powell on Wednesday addressed 400 local gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender professionals and announced that the company opposes the amendment.”
“While General Mills doesn’t normally take positions on ballot measures, this is a business issue that impacts our employees,” Charles said in his post. “I am proud to see our company join the ranks of local and national employers speaking out for inclusion…”
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a major advocate for the marriage amendment, blasted the General Mills Corporation for effectively declaring a “war on marriage” with its own customers.
“Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is profoundly in the common good, and it is especially important for children,” said Brown.
“General Mills makes billions marketing cereal to parents of young children. It has now effectively declared a war on marriage with its own customers when it tells the country that it is opposed to preserving traditional marriage, which is what the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment does.”
Full articles:
http://americansfortruth.com/2012/06/18/general-mills-comes-out-against-minnesota-marriage-amendment/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bye-bye-cheerios-general-mills-announces-support-for-gay-marriage
Remember when Big Business was conservative and was protested by hippies and leftists? Well now, socially speaking, corporate titans are siding with the Left against historic Judeo-Christian values – and God-fearing Christians and Jews are chiding the soulless, capitalist sellouts. The latest Behemoth to kick the Creator to the curb is General Mills — seemingly right up there with apple pie and motherhood as a symbol of American wholesomeness, but no more.
General Mills is maker of these iconic breakfast cereals:
Cheerios
Chex
Cinnamon Toast Crunch
Fiber One
Kix
Lucky Charms
Monsters
Total
Trix
Wheaties
In bowing to the revolutionary, homosexualist redefinition of marriage, the cereal giant has had to re-invent morality itself. Thus it employs the same sanctimonious Diversity Doublespeak as all social leftists who — no matter what destructive policies they pursue — pat themselves on the back for being on the side of “progress.” How telling that a company like General Mills is now serving up the pablum of “inclusion” to justify its immoral turn.
General Mills boasts that its goal “is to be among the most socially responsible food companies in the world.” Memo to General Mills: promoting homosexuality (linked disproportionately to disease and dysfunction) as normative behavior – to the point of undermining natural marriage — is not “socially responsible” but rather the opposite, even though it earns plaudits from the usual morally-challenged suspects. (See this biased “Wikipedia” entry which, sounding like a press release for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, notes that General Mills “received positive feedback for its stand [against the Minnesota marrriage amendment] which is expected to attract people to its global workforce.”)
Apparently General Mills’ executives, like those at Starbuck’s and other mega-corporations, are betting that more American consumers are FOR the sexual sin of homosexuality than against it. Time will tell if they are right, but regardless, corporate profits do not dictate moral Truth.
There are now far too many pro-homosexuality major corporations for us to declare this offender versus that offender a boycott target — so pro-family consumers can make their own purchasing choices. As for me, I will hesitate before buying a box of Wheaties or Cheerios, if only to strike a small, lonely blow for what’s right.
Bye Bye Cheerios?: General Mills announces support for gay ‘marriage’
By Thaddeus Baklinski
ST. PAUL, Minnesota, June 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Minnesota-based food giant General Mills has publicly come out in opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Minnesota.
Currently same-sex “marriage” is against the law in Minnesota. However, in November, Minnesotans will vote on the amendment which would insert the true definition of marriage in the state constitution…
According to a post put up Thursday, June 14 on the General Mills company blog by Ken Charles, vice president of global diversity and inclusion, “General Mills CEO Ken Powell on Wednesday addressed 400 local gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender professionals and announced that the company opposes the amendment.”
“While General Mills doesn’t normally take positions on ballot measures, this is a business issue that impacts our employees,” Charles said in his post. “I am proud to see our company join the ranks of local and national employers speaking out for inclusion…”
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a major advocate for the marriage amendment, blasted the General Mills Corporation for effectively declaring a “war on marriage” with its own customers.
“Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is profoundly in the common good, and it is especially important for children,” said Brown.
“General Mills makes billions marketing cereal to parents of young children. It has now effectively declared a war on marriage with its own customers when it tells the country that it is opposed to preserving traditional marriage, which is what the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment does.”
Full articles:
http://americansfortruth.com/2012/06/18/general-mills-comes-out-against-minnesota-marriage-amendment/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bye-bye-cheerios-general-mills-announces-support-for-gay-marriage
Thursday, June 14, 2012
J.C. Penney Releases Father's Day Ad Featuring Two Gay Dads
To Whom it May Concern,
I am extremely offended by your recent attempt to redefine "families" in your recent Father's Day ad featuring a homosexual couple. Your pandering to the homosexual movement is at the same time pushing away those of us who support traditional, i.e. real, marriage. It is not the place of a department store to be making preachy statements about issues like gay marriage at the cost of its customers. Until such time as I hear that you will no longer attempt to make moral judgments on these issues in your ad campaigns and will be backing out of the culture war, I will not be shopping in your stores. Please, stay out of the controversy and just sell your products.
Thank you
http://americandecency.org/take_action_form.php?message=195
I am extremely offended by your recent attempt to redefine "families" in your recent Father's Day ad featuring a homosexual couple. Your pandering to the homosexual movement is at the same time pushing away those of us who support traditional, i.e. real, marriage. It is not the place of a department store to be making preachy statements about issues like gay marriage at the cost of its customers. Until such time as I hear that you will no longer attempt to make moral judgments on these issues in your ad campaigns and will be backing out of the culture war, I will not be shopping in your stores. Please, stay out of the controversy and just sell your products.
Thank you
http://americandecency.org/take_action_form.php?message=195
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Oppose .porn, .sex and .adult domains!
Take Action:
http://www.waronillegalpornography.com/action-oppose-porn-sex-and-adult-domains/
The .XXX domain was proposed as a place that all Internet porn sites would relocate, making the rest of the Internet porn free. As we predicted from the beginning however, that did not happen. Porn companies did not relocate to .XXX, but instead, the kept their .COM sites and opened additional porn sites on .XXX.
Now, the company behind .XXX is seeking permission to open up three more porn domains, .Porn, .sex, and .adult.
We know that this just means the Internet porn companies will expand to those domains as well and thousands of new porn sites will appear.
We are pressing the U. S. Government and Congress as well as the governing agency of the Internet called, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to stop this expansion of Internet porn.
The public does not want more Internet porn!
TRUTH ABOUT .XXX DOMAIN:
- Now, 6 months after the launch of .XXX domain, none of the major pornography websites switched from their .com to a .xxx site. In fact, many porn companies just launched more websites on the .xxx domain. THERE IS MORE PORNOGRAPHY!
- The filters available today do not have problems blocking most of the pornographic websites on popular domains. Switching to .XXX doesn't make it easier to block (and anyway, no one is switching) because they can block .com sites just fine. The problem is that less that 12% of American homes actually have blocking software.
- Thousands of universities, businesses, politicians and famous individuals have been forced to pay protection money to ICM Registry in order to protect their brand from being associated with pornography. Many of these have had to pay thousands of dollars to ICM Registry, which has made ICM Registry millions of dollars. Now, these brands will have to fork over millions more in order to protect themselves on .sex, .porn and .adult domains.
- One common argument is that Congress can just pass a law to force porn companies to switch to .XXX. Well -
1) it would take a lot of effort to get that law passed and the porn industry, with unlimited financial resources, would work very hard to make sure that didn't happen.
2) If a law was passed, it would most likely be found unconstitutional for a myriad of reasons.
3.) If the law was passed and was upheld by the High Court, that would mean the US Justice Department would have to enforce it. They would have to go one-by-one and prosecute each porn site on .com in order to force them to move to .XXX and these would likely only have small penalties.
The US Justice Department won't even enforce the existing federal obscenity laws. Plus, if they were going to go after porn companies, they should go after them for breaking Federal Obscenity Laws, not just asking them to move their illegal content to another neighborhood on the web.
http://www.waronillegalpornography.com/action-oppose-porn-sex-and-adult-domains/
The .XXX domain was proposed as a place that all Internet porn sites would relocate, making the rest of the Internet porn free. As we predicted from the beginning however, that did not happen. Porn companies did not relocate to .XXX, but instead, the kept their .COM sites and opened additional porn sites on .XXX.
Now, the company behind .XXX is seeking permission to open up three more porn domains, .Porn, .sex, and .adult.
We know that this just means the Internet porn companies will expand to those domains as well and thousands of new porn sites will appear.
We are pressing the U. S. Government and Congress as well as the governing agency of the Internet called, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to stop this expansion of Internet porn.
The public does not want more Internet porn!
TRUTH ABOUT .XXX DOMAIN:
- Now, 6 months after the launch of .XXX domain, none of the major pornography websites switched from their .com to a .xxx site. In fact, many porn companies just launched more websites on the .xxx domain. THERE IS MORE PORNOGRAPHY!
- The filters available today do not have problems blocking most of the pornographic websites on popular domains. Switching to .XXX doesn't make it easier to block (and anyway, no one is switching) because they can block .com sites just fine. The problem is that less that 12% of American homes actually have blocking software.
- Thousands of universities, businesses, politicians and famous individuals have been forced to pay protection money to ICM Registry in order to protect their brand from being associated with pornography. Many of these have had to pay thousands of dollars to ICM Registry, which has made ICM Registry millions of dollars. Now, these brands will have to fork over millions more in order to protect themselves on .sex, .porn and .adult domains.
- One common argument is that Congress can just pass a law to force porn companies to switch to .XXX. Well -
1) it would take a lot of effort to get that law passed and the porn industry, with unlimited financial resources, would work very hard to make sure that didn't happen.
2) If a law was passed, it would most likely be found unconstitutional for a myriad of reasons.
3.) If the law was passed and was upheld by the High Court, that would mean the US Justice Department would have to enforce it. They would have to go one-by-one and prosecute each porn site on .com in order to force them to move to .XXX and these would likely only have small penalties.
The US Justice Department won't even enforce the existing federal obscenity laws. Plus, if they were going to go after porn companies, they should go after them for breaking Federal Obscenity Laws, not just asking them to move their illegal content to another neighborhood on the web.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Protect our Children's Innocence Petition
Whereas: Schools should be institutions of learning, dedicated to the
unbiased and unpoliticized pursuit of knowledge equally for all
students; and
Whereas: The mis-named "Student Non-Discrimination Act" actually DOES
discriminate by creating special protected classes of students; and
Whereas: More accurately-named the "Homosexual Classrooms Act," the
"Student Non-Discrimination Act" targets children with homosexual
propaganda far over their heads in an attempt to sexually confuse and
corrupt; and
Whereas: Government should have NO AUTHORITY to force the Homosexual Agenda on the American people, much less their children;
Therefore: As your constituent and a concerned pro-family voter, I
strongly insist you oppose the so-called "Student Non-Discrimination
Act," and make every attempt to see it defeated.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
NY Court Rules it is Legal to View Child Pornography on Internet
Yesterday, a NY Court of Appeals ruled that it is legal for individuals to view child pornography on the Internet.
We knew that times like this would come if we continued to allow the
mainstreaming and popular acceptance of pornography. By normalizing the
abuse and exploitation of women for so many years, we have essentially
been grooming child pornographers and child predators. Our culture is
becoming desensitized now to even child pornography.
http://pornharms.com/mim/ny-court-rules-it-is-legal-to-view-child-pornography-on-internet/
STATEMENT FROM MORALITY IN MEDIA
In response to the ruling of the New York Court of Appeals yesterday decriminalizing the purposeful viewing of child pornography on the Internet, Patrick Trueman, President of Morality in Media issued the following statement:
Child pornography is the photographic record of the sexual abuse of a child so it is a singular outrage that the highest court in New York State has decriminalized the act of viewing of child pornography by computer.
Children live with shame and hurt from knowing that a record of their abuse circulates on the Internet. Each time these photos are viewed, the child is revictimized. Some children never recover from the experience.
Child pornography should be treated as a very serious violation of the human dignity of the victims and those who take enjoyment from the despicable act of viewing such material should be harshly punished. What the New York court has done is to give permission to pedophiles and child molesters to continue the sexual molestation and recording of child sex abuse.
We call upon the United States Attorney for the Southern District to immediately move to arrest and prosecute the defendant for violating federal child pornography laws. As the Court of Appeals decision recognizes, this conduct is prosecutable under federal law. In addition, we demand that the Attorney General and the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention authorize the New York City and State, Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces to take over all child pornography possession cases currently being prosecuted by New York State Prosecutors and investigated by the Task Forces until this opinion is overturned.
The New York State Legislature has its work cut out for it and it should act immediately.
http://pornharms.com/mim/ny-court-rules-it-is-legal-to-view-child-pornography-on-internet/
STATEMENT FROM MORALITY IN MEDIA
In response to the ruling of the New York Court of Appeals yesterday decriminalizing the purposeful viewing of child pornography on the Internet, Patrick Trueman, President of Morality in Media issued the following statement:
Child pornography is the photographic record of the sexual abuse of a child so it is a singular outrage that the highest court in New York State has decriminalized the act of viewing of child pornography by computer.
Children live with shame and hurt from knowing that a record of their abuse circulates on the Internet. Each time these photos are viewed, the child is revictimized. Some children never recover from the experience.
Child pornography should be treated as a very serious violation of the human dignity of the victims and those who take enjoyment from the despicable act of viewing such material should be harshly punished. What the New York court has done is to give permission to pedophiles and child molesters to continue the sexual molestation and recording of child sex abuse.
We call upon the United States Attorney for the Southern District to immediately move to arrest and prosecute the defendant for violating federal child pornography laws. As the Court of Appeals decision recognizes, this conduct is prosecutable under federal law. In addition, we demand that the Attorney General and the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention authorize the New York City and State, Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces to take over all child pornography possession cases currently being prosecuted by New York State Prosecutors and investigated by the Task Forces until this opinion is overturned.
The New York State Legislature has its work cut out for it and it should act immediately.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
REVOKE BIG LABOR'S LICENSE TO KILL
A Citizen's Petition to:
My U.S. Senators and Representative
Whereas:
Every year militant union bosses deploy their thugs to target innocent
men and women with threats, brass knuckles, knives and beatings in an
attempt to send a simple message -- do what we want, or pay the price;
and
Whereas:
Because of the 1973 Enmons decision, union officials are exempt
from federal prosecution -- as long as the campaign of violence they
incite is in the name of "legitimate union objectives"; and
Whereas:
Union violence is a crippling blow not only for innocent American
workers targeted by union militants -- but for every American citizen;
and
Whereas:
Passage of the Freedom from Union Violence Act would close the loophole
in federal law and finally allow authorities to prosecute union
officials for inciting violence;
Therefore:
I urge you to help hold union officials accountable for union violence
by cosponsoring and seeking roll-call votes on the Freedom from Union
Violence Act.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Why is TruGreen promoting foul language?
Dear CEO Vidu Kulkarni:
As a mother and a member of OneMillionMoms.com, I am greatly disappointed in your new "What the Fffffffff--- front yard?" commercial. Does TruGreen desire for children to have dirty mouths?
TruGreen may have thought this was humorous, but it is not cute when children go around repeating what they heard on your ad.
I believe TruGreen should be more responsible in its advertising.
Please pull your "Weed Slayer" commercial immediately. If the ad continues to run as it is, then I will not feel comfortable supporting your company.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding my concern.
http://www.onemillionmoms.com/TakeAction.asp?id=452
As a mother and a member of OneMillionMoms.com, I am greatly disappointed in your new "What the Fffffffff--- front yard?" commercial. Does TruGreen desire for children to have dirty mouths?
TruGreen may have thought this was humorous, but it is not cute when children go around repeating what they heard on your ad.
I believe TruGreen should be more responsible in its advertising.
Please pull your "Weed Slayer" commercial immediately. If the ad continues to run as it is, then I will not feel comfortable supporting your company.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding my concern.
http://www.onemillionmoms.com/TakeAction.asp?id=452
Secretary thrashes religious liberty on Air Force bases
As your constituent, I am increasingly disturbed by Secretary Michael Donley's leadership of the United States Air Forces.
Under his watch, in the past 12 months, religious liberties and faith-based programs have been revoked at least four times. For example, in:
• April 2012 - The Air Force removed the word "Bible" from its list of items it to be provided in Air Force-approved lodging facilities. This will almost certainly result in the eventual removal of Bibles themselves from Air Base hotels or any hotel that does business with the Air Force.
• February 2012 - The Air Force removed the word "God" from the logo of its Rapid Capabilities Office.
• November 2011 - The Air Force Academy dropped "Operation Christmas Child" after a single complaint from an atheist group. The Air Force apologized to the atheists and ordered chaplains to no longer use official mail to promote the charity.
• August 2011 - The Air Force removed "Bible verses" from a military course taught to nuclear missile officers (the ones who push the launch button).
Secretary Donley is creating a hostile environment among Airmen who hold deeply felt religious values.
Rather than holding fast and defending the deeply-held religious traditions and history of the Air Force, Secretary Donley has caved to the whims of a few vocal atheists, effectively "cleansing" it of any respect for religion.
If you serve on the Congressional Oversight Committee, I urge you to begin an investigation into the anti-religious actions of Secretary Michael Donley. If you are not on the COC, please encourage the committee to take action.
Our Airmen deserve a leader who respects the importance of faith in our nation's military. Secretary Donley has been a huge disappointment.
http://www.votervoice.net/Core/core.aspx?APP=GAC&AID=365&issueid=28560&SiteID=-1
Under his watch, in the past 12 months, religious liberties and faith-based programs have been revoked at least four times. For example, in:
• April 2012 - The Air Force removed the word "Bible" from its list of items it to be provided in Air Force-approved lodging facilities. This will almost certainly result in the eventual removal of Bibles themselves from Air Base hotels or any hotel that does business with the Air Force.
• February 2012 - The Air Force removed the word "God" from the logo of its Rapid Capabilities Office.
• November 2011 - The Air Force Academy dropped "Operation Christmas Child" after a single complaint from an atheist group. The Air Force apologized to the atheists and ordered chaplains to no longer use official mail to promote the charity.
• August 2011 - The Air Force removed "Bible verses" from a military course taught to nuclear missile officers (the ones who push the launch button).
Secretary Donley is creating a hostile environment among Airmen who hold deeply felt religious values.
Rather than holding fast and defending the deeply-held religious traditions and history of the Air Force, Secretary Donley has caved to the whims of a few vocal atheists, effectively "cleansing" it of any respect for religion.
If you serve on the Congressional Oversight Committee, I urge you to begin an investigation into the anti-religious actions of Secretary Michael Donley. If you are not on the COC, please encourage the committee to take action.
Our Airmen deserve a leader who respects the importance of faith in our nation's military. Secretary Donley has been a huge disappointment.
http://www.votervoice.net/Core/core.aspx?APP=GAC&AID=365&issueid=28560&SiteID=-1
Friday, April 20, 2012
Please oppose the confirmation of Elissa Cadish
Majority Leader Harry Reid is attempting to push yet another radical anti-gunner through the U.S. Senate. This time it's Elissa Cadish, who flatly denies that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right.
Asked in 2008 by a group called Citizens for Responsible Government whether she believed an individual citizen had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, Cadish answered:
"I do not believe there is this constitutional right. Thus, I believe that reasonable restrictions may be imposed on gun ownership in the interest of public safety. Of course, I will enforce the laws as they exist as a judge." [sic]
Now, she claims that she was only stating the law as it existed before the Supreme Court's Heller v. D.C. decision.
But let's count the "red flags" raised by Cadish:
First, the "militia" theory was not "the law" prior to Heller, either in terms of the Framers' intentions or in terms of the Supreme Court's admittedly muddled jurisprudence.
Second, the concept that "restrictions ... on gun ownership [further] public safety" is a thinly veiled suggestion that, once on the bench for life, Cadish will do everything possible to thwart gun owners' rights.
Third, we've heard the "enforce the law" lingo from other Obama nominees, including Sonia Sotomayor, who, as soon as she had secured confirmation, went on an anti-Second Amendment rampage.
Thankfully, Nevada's other Senator, Dean Heller, is using his prerogative as one of the nominee's home state Senators to keep the Cadish confirmation from moving forward.
I urge you to join with Senator Heller in opposing the confirmation of Elissa Cadish
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=61182881&PROCESS=Take+Action
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Defeat the H.R. 308 McCarthy Magazine Ban Bill
McCarthy Magazine Ban Bill
Whereas: The Second Amendment to the United States clearly
states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and;
Whereas: H.R. 308, the Magazine Ban Bill, would infringe
on every American’s Second Amendment rights by outlawing the sale and transfer of
gun magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds, and;
Whereas: The Magazine Ban Bill would even turn widows into
instant felons if their late husbands possessed a magazine capable of holding more
than ten rounds, and;
Whereas: If the gun-grabbers pass H.R. 308
through the U.S. House, they’ll then load it down with anti-gun amendments in the
U.S. Senate, making the bill even worse;
Therefore: I urge you to vote AGAINST the Magazine Ban Bill
(H.R. 308) -- or any similar bill -- at every opportunity.
(H.R. 308) -- or any similar bill -- at every opportunity.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Starbucks proud stance conflicts with Gods standard
Starbucks long term direction to
blatantly go against time-honored standards of truth, morality and
decency is extremely difficult to comprehend. In your effort to please a core, you are backhanding millions of people with traditional family values.
You
have lost my regard. By not consuming your products, I stand for
time-honored standards of truth and against the societal corruption
which you espouse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)