~Pearl
I hadn’t realized that the Mormon / LDS Church released a second, follow-up video showing images from inside Temples and presenting individual member testimonies of the importance of the Temple. I may be biased, but HBO’s got nothing on this. Attempted sensationalism and exposé fall far short of their intended result when one having authority comes right out and declares simply:
“No unclean thing may enter His hallowed house . . . yet . . . anyone is welcome who prepares well.” - Elder Russell M. Nelson, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So much for the sensational allure of “those secretive Mormons.”
~Pearl
Today Glenn Beck unveiled the first step in the “We Surround Them” strategy to take back our country for the people. With a packed New York City studio and huge groups of participants and viewers in cities across the nation, he spoke right to the heart of America, but even more importantly, he provided incentive, opportunity, and encouragement for Americans to speak to each other.
Beginning with a chronicle of the events leading up to and following September 11, 2001, Glenn described how the nature of Americans changed drastically within a three-day period. On 9/10, American’s had their heads in the sand, busy going about their business. On 9/11, Americans were running scared, frightened, confused, and vulnerable. On 9/12, the strength of America emerged from the wreckage in the form of it’s average, everyday citizenry as we joined together to voice our outrage, our patriotism, and our sympathy for those whose lives were sacrificed to treachery.
Today Glenn asks, “Which kind of American are you?”
Are you a 9/10 American with your head stuffed into the sand?
Are you a 9/11 American, fearful and immobilized?
Or are you a 9/12 American, strong, united, and plenty intelligent enough to know what you want for your country and to know that we’re headed in the wrong direction to preserve our Constitution and the freedoms sanctified therein?
I hope I am a 9/12 American, but I feel just as helpless as many of my friends have noted lately, that even though we vote and take part in the political process on an individual basis, being a concerned citizen in this country, believing in principles and values not lauded by our mainstream media, feels a bit lonely at times. Glenn noted that people feel shut up, afraid, and alone because of political correctness. We have strong beliefs, but are encouraged by visible political figures and celebrities to keep quiet in the name of being politically correct.
So Glenn brings in Ben Sherwood, author of “The Survivors Club,” who has engaged in extensive research with the intent of discovering exactly what encourages an individual and a society to survive. His conclusions? Survivorship is about community. And when Sherwood interviewed the ultimate in ultimate survivors, a man living in Pensacola, FL (if I followed the dialogue correctly), he responded, without hesitation, that the most influential factor for which he accredits his survival, was his faith in God.
And so the challenge begins (and I paraphrase), “Start meeting with your friends around the kitchen table. Talk about the country . . . . Talk about the principles . . . . Talk about our Founding Fathers,” says Glenn. Discard the shackles of political correctness and engage in open, honest dialogue about the issues you see facing our country today. And educate yourself. Throughout the course of this television hour, Beck provided a litany of book titles for those with a desire to learn and absorb the true meaning of democracy:
The Five Thousand Year Leap, by Cleon Skousen
The Real George Washington, by Parry, Allison, Skousen
The Survivor’s Club, by Ben Sherwood
Black Belt Patriotism, by Chuck Norris
Lone Survivor, by Marcus Luttrell
Says Glenn, “Our government told us to go shopping [to save the economy]. . . . but what we need is to reconnect with these nine principles and 12 values.”
The Nine Principles1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.12 Values
- Honesty
- Reverence
- Hope
- Thrift
- Humility
- Charity
- Sincerity
- Moderation
- Hard Work
- Courage
- Personal Responsibility
- Gratitude
During the report, Glenn also announced a new website, powered by the largest server Fox News could find, which after one commercial break had been completely overloaded. :0) I believe it is actually still inaccessible due to the large volumes of beleaguered Americans desperate for a glimmer of hope.
So, in the name of fostering open dialogue, here are some of the upcoming events I will be attending to stand up and make my voice heard. I encourage you to find patriotic demonstrations in your own area, attend, and be heard. Besides attending the following rallies, I will also be attempting to organize a regular meeting of the minds for my friends and neighbors interested in discussing the challenges our nation faces today. Again, I echo Beck and encourage you to do the same in your neighborhood. Let’s start the discussion and keep the dialogue going.
1. Send a tea bag to Washington on April 1st. We are no fools. This will cost you no more than 2 minutes, an envelope, a spare tea bag, and a stamp. You can do this. For more information, click here.
2. Attend a Tax Day Tea Party or start one if there hasn’t been one organized for your city already. One hundred and fifteen cities around the nation have already signed up to be a part of this. That’s 1-1-5, folks! If that doesn’t send a clear message of discontent and a need for real “change,” I cannot imagine what else will. Someone please remind me why America voted this guy into power in the first place? Please?
My own dear city of San Diego will be having a Tax Day Tea Party first on Saturday, April 11, 2009, in order to allow the hard-working people of this gorgeous place to rally for their voice and their money and their way of life, then again on Wednesday April 15, 2009, at post offices around the county. Click on the links to view more information about location and contacts. See you there!
~Pearl
MegnCali “The 912 Project” Apparel
Official Nationwide Tea Party Store
Sto Pro Verum Store – Stand For Truth
Watch the whole show. Double click and the video will open up in YouTube. From there you will be able to view all parts of the show in succession. Enjoy!
With HBO’s controversial Mormon Temple, Big Love episode set to air this weekend, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has created and released a timely video discussing the nature of its temples. Calm, reassuring, and succinct, this video maturely approaches the sacred and spiritual nature of temples and their personal meaning to Latter-day Saint attendees across the globe.
~Pearl
This is an article worth reposting everywhere. In The Weekly Standard, Maureen Mullarkey, a self-described “painter who writes on art and culture,” brilliantly addresses her accusers, effectively exposing the behind-the-scenes, rabid face of the virulent homosexual movement.
I regretfully admit that back in February, when I first wrote about Maureen, I too fell victim to inaccurate media reporting by adopting the AP’s sensation-inducing label/title of “Chappaqua Artist of Gay Themes.” In reality, Maureen relates:
To make sense of this, backspace to the early '90s and a series of paintings I exhibited called Guise & Dolls. It was a singular body of work based on images from New York's annual carnival, the gay pride parade. I could have used a New Orleans Mardi Gras or Munich's Fasching, but Manhattan was closer. At times funny and poignant, the parade was also--in the age of AIDS--tinged with sexual danger. The spectacle of it made a splendid analogy to the medieval danse macabre.
Festive misrule and the politics of carnival, deeply rooted in cultural history, are a compelling motive for painting. Think of Bruegel the Elder's Fight Between Carnival and Lent. The flamboyant Dionysian heart of the gay pride parade was the subject of Guise & Dolls, not homosexuality itself and certainly not any policy agenda. A public event free for the watching, it is staged to provoke audience response. I responded with a suite of paintings; they bore no relation to my prior or subsequent work. All suggestion that I "make a living on the back of the gay community," as my mail insisted, was a hysterical fantasy brewed in the grievance industry's fever swamp.
But no matter. I was up there now with Halliburton and Big Oil, a class enemy. The brownshirts came out in force.
When her donation was first made public, along with all the other millions of donations to Proposition 8, here is a sampling of the response she received from homosexual activists via email and snail mail:
Suddenly, I was "a vampire on the gay community" who should be put out of business. As one note put it: "Your career is over, you nasty piece of s--. F-- off! WHORE!"
My home address and email were repeated in comment sections in which readers egged each other on to "make the b---- pay." Militants trawled for editors and gallerists I had worked with to warn them that "the Gay Community is looking at our adversaries and those who may support them." (One former editor blind-copied me his exchange with an aspiring storm trooper who threatened a boycott for those "having an association" with me.)
Reprimands flooded in, all based on the false premise that fat slices of proprietary gay imagery were being creamed off the urban spectacle for my personal profit:
1. “You should apologize for your deceit. Stop using us as your subject matter in this incredibly exploitative manner. You must realize that your actions are no different than an artist depicting the black community contributing to white supremacist organizations.
How dare you use gay people as inspiration and then stab these people in the back by fighting to limit their rights. You are a disgusting, pitiful, opportunistic b----.”
2. “I don't understand why you would want to deny love in this world, no matter what form it takes. I can't imagine your motives, can't imagine your hate.
Our parades are not the only place you can fulfill your artistic vision. . . . You could visit the Hasidic community. You know, them? They wear "unusual" clothes, too. There are so very many freak shows you can enjoy in this world.”
3. “Homosexuals rule the World of Creativity, and that is whom you just f--ed with!
You represent the most despicable type of artist and human being. I do hope that you feel the financial pain your actions will bring. May God bless you with financial ruin for your treacherous deed.
Because I love delusional bigots, I hope you never see another dime, b----.”
4. “The grave ungood you have done is not only to us, lesbians and gays who expect no less than full civil rights in our own country, but ironically to your own art career. Unless you don't mind showing at Reverend Rick's or perhaps at Brigham Young University.”
5. “At first I thought there should be a special place in hell for people like you. But then I thought, maybe purgatory! A dull, nothing kind of Catholic nowhere. Just like you!”
6. Rick0564 wrote: "If God makes us Gay, then please let us love one another through marriage. It's what Jesus would do." Tina K inquired: "If I believed that Catholics should not vote, and managed to get a proposition passed to that effect, would that be fair to you?"
7. “Eat sh-- and die, c—.
Eat c-- and die, b----.
You right-wing, heterosupremacist t--.
You are the moral equivalent of a Jewish Nazi. Roast in hell, you filthy c—.”
It is one thing to read hate-filled mail on a computer screen. It is something else to have it in hand. At the end of the week, when it started coming to my house, I filed a police report.
After it all, I appreciate Maureen’s summary:
“My opposition to same-sex marriage does not originate in the pew. However much sympathy, affection--indeed, love--I have for certain gay persons, "gay marriage" burlesques a primal institution rooted in nature. Marriage, as a unique bond between male and female, predates all politics and religious doctrines. And no one has to believe in God to see social anarchy, with children adrift in the wreckage, at the end of the same-sex marriage road.”
Maureen Mullarkey, “painter who writes on art and culture,” is courageous. I appreciate the dignity and intelligence with which she faces her unruly oppressors.
~Pearl
[hat-tip Opine-Editorials]
Glenn Beck:
“You know the history of the progressive movement, Jonah. If the supreme court says it is constitutional, then what happens on the streets of California? .… What happens with progressives, usually, when they don’t get their way?”
Jonah Goldberg:
“The history of progressivism is going wherever the field is open. If they can win it at the ballot box with elections then all of a sudden progressives are all about democracy. If they can’t win at the ballot box, they go to the courts and say we’re all about the courts. If they can’t win at the courts, they use the executive branch. It’s wherever they have open field. They’re going to keep going at this until they win.”
Glenn Beck:
“Can you ban civil rights?”
Jay Sekulow:
“Well sure you can. I mean, not in the sense of a fundamental right. No courts recognize that this is a fundamental right. And that would be under what’s called the Supremacy Clause. The idea that the US Constitution, if it’s a right in the US Constitution a state can’t get rid of say the right of freedom of religion, the free exercise of religion, or can’t get rid of the freedom of speech, or the freedom of the press. But no federal court, and certainly not the supreme court of the United States, has recognized in this particular case whether it’s a protest on donuts or whether it’s an issue involving the definition of marriage - if that’s a fundamental constitutional right. So when you’ve got a situation like this where it’s strictly up to the States to make the determination, it’s up to those citizens of the States to make that determination . . . . No federal claim involved here.”
~Pearl
Today I am happy. There seems a chance that democracy and justice might truly prevail against relativism and emotionalism. As soon as Prop 8 opposition “took the stand,” justices lit into them on the issue of revision vs. amendment, firing question after question. Then, Justice Kennard nobly defended the people’s right to amend the Constitution, recognizing her own limitations as a Supreme Court Justice:
"And what I'm picking up from the oral argument in this case is this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people," she said.
…
"I think what you are overlooking is the very broad powers of the people to amend the constitution," Kennard told Marshall as he finished up his arguments.
So while it appears, reasonably, that Proposition 8 will be upheld, what remains in question is the fate of the 18,000 couples who were “married” before California voters confirmed that marriage between one man and one woman was the definition they would firmly defend. Ken Starr, Prop 8 counsel, reminded the California Supreme Court justices that Proposition 8 was well on its way to the ballot before the judges issued their ruling on May 15, 2008. With the knowledge that Prop 8 would be on the ballot in November, the Supreme Court justices were asked to stay the effects of their May 15 ruling until after the will of the people was made known on November 4th. They declined, couples were joined, Prop 8 passed making the sovereign will of the people known (for the second time) on this matter. I pray the justices will accept full responsibility for their actions and accept Starr’s compromise that 18,000 “married” couples can retain the privileges and protections of Domestic Partnerships while surrendering the sacred title of marriage reserved for the union of one and one woman.
From Maggie Gallagher of NOM
We will know for sure in 90 days, but if I were a Prop 8 opponent, I'd be very discouraged right now. The argument that a 14-word definition of marriage is a wholesale revision of the constitution is legally and logically absurd and at least two of the pro-same-sex marriage justices expressed pretty profound skepticism.
Justice Kennard, in particular, seemed to be open to the idea you could not take away sweeping equal protection guarantees from gay and lesbian citizens through the amendment process--but could not wrap her head around the idea that protecting the meaning of the word "marriage" was such a radical sweeping thing to do.
From Beetle Blogger
To start off, the justices hardly let the opposition’s lawyers even get their hellos in before they started ripping them with questions. They seemed completely uninterested in speeches and pontifications, and unimpressed with the emotional aspects of the opposition’s most loved rhetoric. Two hours later, the court still had questions.
By far the worst lawyer and arguments were for Jerry Brown’s case. All I can say is THANK GOODNESS FOR PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM bringing in Ken Starr!! Jerry Brown’s case was TERRIBLE.
He argued that Prop 8 was a legal amendment, but a bad one and the judges shouldn’t allow bad laws to be made. The justices looked blank for a minute and then open season began as they ripped into his “novel theory”. Justice after Justice quoted to him from the constitution which itself says: Power comes from the people. Judges get their power from the people. Not the other way around. Jerry Brown’s counsel, tripped up early and never really got his footing back. It was a complete disaster. Um….uh…I don’t know….yep. Lawyer fail.
I think Starr’s approach was much cleaner. He came across as your favorite grandpa, not trying to sell you on something you don’t need, and not trying to guilt you into reacting, just telling it the way it was.
With less than half the time allotted the opposition, Ken Starr hit home run after home run.
We owned the hearing today, in no small part to an honest case articulated perfectly by Starr who rattled off answers to every question posed. By the time he finished, the justices had no more questions. That’s saying a lot for judges who seemed full of questions.
Hip, hip hooray! I know it’s premature, but I’m celebrating nonetheless. It’s been a hard-earned and long-anticipated optimism I’ve looked forward to.
Happy March 5th, Pearl People.
~Pearl
STO PRO VERUM – STAND FOR TRUTH
Besides being a great blog, Sto Pro Verum is also the name of a new one-stop shop for marriage defense clothing and merchandise. Want to sport a t-shirt proclaiming your marriage support for all the world? Easy, just visit Sto Pro Verum. Want to put a “California Voted” button on your tote, purse, or diaper bag? Easy, just visit Sto Pro Verum. Or maybe you’d like your darling babe to rock a “Got Democracy” onesie. Simple, just visit Sto Pro Verum. In our failing economy, we are all picky about where we spend our hard-earned, precious dollars. Well, I’ll tell you what, this shop is definitely one of those places worthy of your money! So spend away. And, even better, all proceeds go to ProtectMarriage.com!
I’ve got my sights set on this one with its “sticking it to the man” flare. :0)
~Pearl
Prop 8 hearing is this Thursday, March 5th, 9am in San Francisco. Supreme Court Prop 8 Oral Arguments can also be viewed online at The California Channel, and their list of television carriers can be found here. Join this Facebook event to learn more about how to rally for marriage locally.
As per the revision v. amendment argument, my personal thoughts are that the Equal Protection Clause has not been violated in the least. Proposition 8 does not represent a “substantial change to the underlying principles of the constitution.” Nor does it single out one particular group of people for discrimination; rather, “Proposition 8, which supports marriage for all legal adults regardless of distinction, grants access to the institution of marriage for all citizens equally” (Beetle Blogger). It is not just a rule excluding homosexuals. Whether we have homosexual tendencies, heterosexual tendencies, bisexual tendencies, incestuous tendencies, polygamous tendencies, polyamorous tendencies, or pedophiliac tendencies, this amendment applies to us all equally; we are equally mandated, equally addressed, and equally protected whether we recognize and appreciate that protection or not. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage is regulated for the well-being of children and the preservation of society. And contrary to popular, selfish thought these days, children’s rights do indeed come before adult preferences, urges, and attractions.
Remember this segment, also known as the Preamble, from the Constitution of the United States of America? I’ve added my own clarifying bit here:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare [NOT THE MINORITY SEXUAL BEHAVIORS], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity [YES, WE DO HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And embedded in the California State Constitution, also established by the people, is the following preservation:
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”
Here is another take on this matter featuring Andrew Pugno’s response to Shannon Minter as taken from an article in the Sacramento Bee:
"This is now about whether a majority can take away an inalienable right from one group of Californians," Minter said. "If the court were to say it's OK … then no one's rights would mean very much."… Folsom attorney Andrew Pugno, disagreed with Minter's contention that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot.
"Minority rights exist only because the majority decided to protect them by adopting a constitution," Pugno said. "If the court misinterprets those rights, it's the people's job to correct that by clarifying the constitution."
Beetle Blogger has a great response to homosexual activist, Senator Leno, discussing this same issue as well. Read it here.
What chaps my hide is that I have voted, and so have seven million other California citizens. And we didn’t just vote. We worked hard, we campaigned, we educated, we called, we walked, we waved, we sacrificed. And now all that effort is balancing on a judicial tightrope. And you know what? I don’t care. I just care that marriage remains protected, that children remain protected, and that society remains protected from chaos, democratic usurpation, improper and misguided interpretation of the Constitution, and redefinition. It seems that ALL THREE branches of government here in California have gone AWOL and even when the people step in to establish guidelines through a democratic process, our AWOL “leaders” are trying desperately to supplant us. If they succeed, California may as well secede from the United States of America because they will no longer be represented democratically. What a terrible shame that would be. Time to take back California, people.
On a parting note, I share a quote from an impassioned Matt Barber, following the Supreme Court decision that struck down Proposition 22 on May 15th, 2008:
"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.
"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."
How will you show your support for and defense of Prop 8, marriage, and your vote this Thursday, March 5th, 2009?
~Pearl
