PayPal: Clients’ religious freedoms trump homosexual activists’ preferences

 We keep being told that so-called same sex marriage and the forced acceptance of homosexuality doesn’t change anything.  It harms no one.

But for some reason, every few weeks, we hear another story about gays trying to shut down the behavior or speech of Christians….

In this case, however, they did not succeed….kudos to PayPal:

In an era of growing intolerance to Christian beliefs and corporate skittishness to pressure from gay activists, the world’s largest global electronic payments service provider says its clients’ religious freedoms trump homosexual activists’ preferences. — a gay activist petition site — recently targeted PayPal, taking umbrage at the fact that nearly a dozen ministries and charities that don’t endorse homosexuality use PayPal in their fundraising efforts.  “We won’t stop speaking up until they drop [the] 10 sites and ban all anti-LGBT extremist groups,” writes in its petition. The accounts in question are predominately U.S.-based nonprofits.

The petition states that it’s “PayPal’s responsibility to make sure this technology doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.”

A PayPal spokeswoman said the company prohibits the use of its services to promote acts of hate and violence. “However, we also take into account the rights of free speech and freedom of religion,” she said. “Balancing these conflicting rights is often difficult, and so we assess possible infringements objectively against our Acceptable Use Policy.”

Get that?  Christians and their ministries are “extremist groups”, in the eyes of these gay activists.

Just to be clear…this is what happened here.  A gay activist group targets a corporation that deals with a wide-array of companies, clients and groups.  The gay activists try to force the company to sever ties with any groups who don’t condone their lifestyle or their view of what theses customers should be.

We, as individuals (and Christians), need to stand up as PayPal did and declare our right to believe as we choose.

From a commenter at the link….it appears the gay lobby has become what it says it abhors:

Definition of Bigot: “A person obstinately or intolerably devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.”


Krauthammer: The Last Refuge of a Liberal

This piece has been out for a few days, but I haven’t had a chance to add it to my blog until now.

Charles Krauthammer skewers the libs and their repetitive cries of “bigotry” against those who dare to disagree and actively work against their statist, collectivist, and controlling agenda.

I am going to cover Krauthammer’s last paragraph first…because it is priceless in its ability to call out the Dems for what they are:

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

I am a PROUD member of the great unwashed…and I can’t wait to wash the floor with these hypocritical elites in November!

To begin, Krauthammer points out the Obama/liberal agenda and its fall from grace:

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the “bitter” people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging “to guns or religion or” — this part is less remembered — “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”…….That’s a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry.

Yep, the “hope” and “change” of 2008 has turned into the “Nope” and “Power change” of 2010….thank God, the American people have not ALL swallowed the Obama administration’s false “hope” and his  intent to change our country and move it forever away from our Founding Documents and the intents of our Founders. 

Sure, our country has slowly been sliding away from its Founding principles for  years, but the advent of Obama and an unchecked Democratic Congress has rapidly shown the Progressive/Liberal collectivism, relativism, and globalism for what it is…..destruction of our country on a grand scale.   And America doesn’t like it.

Thank God Almighty the comfortable masses are awakening in this midst of this daily nightmare.

Krauthammer continues:

And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

— Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

— Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

— Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

— Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become “ungovernable,” last year’s excuse for the Democrats’ failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities — often lopsided majorities — oppose President Obama’s social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

Not to mention our disgust at the new power czar structure Obama has put in place; massive deficits, spending, and debt; Obama’s hypocritical flip-flop/credit-taking on the Iraq War success; Congress’ inability to read monstrous bill’s before passing them; and deeming anything from healthcare to budgets as passed–without debate and bipartisan input.

I have no empathy for those who ASK to play in politics. Obama ASKED for the job of President and Pelosi/Reid slobbered all over their constituents awaiting their turn at grand power.

When they signed up for it, the American people came as part of the package. Resorting to calling them bigots, classifying them as terrorists, racists, and Islamophobes when they disagree shows the smallness of the individuals doing the name-calling.

Let’s take the Tea Party:

The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president’s proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Arizona’s SB1070 immigration law:

Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.

And California’s Proposition 8….passed by a vote of the PEOPLE, overturned by a rogue judge:

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And the latest atrocity — the Ground Zero mosque:

…The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration’s pretense that we are at war with nothing more than “violent extremists” of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

In summary, Krauthammer says:

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them” — blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims — a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, “just downright mean”?

I am afraid Mistress Michelle is soon going to see just HOW downright mean we can be when retaliating against the constant poking of her husband’s anti-American agenda every…single…day.

November 2….A day that will live in infamy.

Some interesting thoughts that crossed my brain today….

I don’t always have time to write, link, and do justice to so many of the issues that exist in our country and politics today.

So today I am summarizing a few things that have creeped into my brain over the last few days.  Perhaps some of you can answer and discuss……

Why don’t the so-called 9-11 truthers concentrate less on ignorant theories that the government exploded the World Trade Center and focus more on the deficits and debt explosion of this government?

Why do the NFL (and MSM and Hollywood and liberals, in general) give a pass to, if not practically cheer for, those sports stars and others who’ve had 121 adulterous partners, raped underage girls, mutilated dogs for fun, and more…..while they show contempt for a wholesome, “saving himself” leader such as Tim Tebow?

Why is it that the so-called “tolerant” MSM and liberals are laser-focused on the sexual preference of Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, while those on the right are not?

Similarly, if Elena Kagan believes that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is so wrong in the military, why won’t she clearly state whether she is (or isn’t) a homosexual?

How is it that we always hear about “peaceful and tolerant Muslims” but we never see or hear them?  Is it because the “peaceful” cower to the violence or because the “peaceful Muslim” is non-existent but the “radical” Muslim slithers among us?

If Arizona, as of today’s signing by Governor Brewer, has a law that outlaws teaching children about the “overthrow of the US Government“, does that mean that if Obama’s is successful in imposing his ideological agenda on America that they won’t be able to learn about our 44th President in Arizona in the future?

What do you think?

Court won’t hear Scouts’ appeal in San Diego land rental case

From AP via, Court won’t hear Scouts’ appeal.

The Supreme Court has let stand a ruling saying the Boy Scouts cannot lease city park land in San Diego because the group is a religious organization. The high court refused to hear an appeal from San Diego-area Boy Scouts.

The Boy Scouts maintain that they have no theology and only hold the position that children have a “duty to God” to become productive citizens……

…..The American Civil Liberties Union had sued San Diego and the Boy Scouts on behalf of a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple, each with Scouting-age sons.

What a country….espouse a duty to God and you are removed from a private rental agreement with the city government.

Espouse homosexuality as the “norm” or be confused as to the existence of God and your rights trump those of a group of patriotic, God-loving young men.

Our Constitution supports a free exercise of religion on public or private land….it does not give certain groups the right to deny that free exercise simply because they disagree.

UPDATED: Thoughts on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy

The Obama administration is going full court press on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy for gays serving in the military. Of course, Congress must pass a new law to overturn it, but Obama is also directing Robert Gates and military leaders to do everything they can to work around the existing law until, God forbid, Congress changes the law.

As a refresher summary on the DADT policy:

The 1993 law enacted by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by President Clinton prevents homosexuals from serving openly. The policy also prohibits the military from asking recruits on the front end if they are homosexual.

It is also pertinent to note (my emphasis):

It [DADT] is, by the way, similar to the way heterosexual relations are treated as well.  Men stay away from women altogether in uniform.  It isn’t practiced, it isn’t discussed, it is frowned upon – in theory.  This isn’t to say that it doesn’t happen, any more than DADT would imply that gay sexual relations don’t happen.  It does mean that there are certain requirements in the military that comport with good discipline, and they are enforced to the extent possible. 

……But in the end, DADT has been a mainstay of operations for a while now, and revoking this policy might mean more than a little change to the military….

…..For a branch like the Marines which has as their cornerstone removing differences and enforcing sameness (or at least relegating them to unimportant status – e.g., no one can remove language barriers), it probably will have a significant affect.

So as a part of discipline, “open” heterosexuality is also something that the military frowns upon.   I see no problem with that, just as I see the DADT policy as something that enforces discipline among military members.  And the argument for promoting “sameness” rather than differences is a valid and important issue to address when speaking of the repeal of DADT.

And let’s not forget the bottom line–the US Military has a mission to defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic.  That is the ultimate goal.   Issues and policies that can hinder or overshadow that goal should not be taken lightly or decided upon by the whims of “social change” agents.

 Obama had this to say in the State of the Union speech on January 27:

Obama declared during the Jan. 27 State of the Union address he would work this year “with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

Well, as is his usual schtick, Obama’s making a statement that is simply not true in order push his point of view.  The DADT policy doesn’t permit the open discussion or practicing of homosexuality.  But any homosexual may serve in the military and they do.  So it is disingenuous to tout the repeal of DADT based on a lie that gays can’t serve in the military.  This line is regularly used by those who wish to repeal DADT.

In addition, many who serve have no problem serving alongside homosexuals, just as many have no problem serving alongside women.  However, many of those same people are opposed to doing away with the DADT policy.

Herschel Smith at Captain’s Journal writes:

 It’s appropriate to convey the thoughts of at least a few contacts active in the military.  My contacts – who by the way aren’t opposed in principle to the idea of gays serving alongside them – seem to pan the idea pretty much across the board.

It is also interesting to note that many in the military are against changing the DADT policy.  And many say they will not re-enlist or continue serving in the military if the DADT law is changed to promote homosexuality in the military (my emphasis):

A Military Times survey of subscribers released in December 2008 found that 58 percent of active military personnel oppose repealing the current policy. Additionally, if the policy is overturned, nearly 10 percent said, “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” while another 14 percent said, “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” A 2006 Zogby poll found only 26 percent of military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan supported overturning the current policy.

So, it clearly seems that vast majorities of those serving in the military are against the repeal of DADT.   Why does it seem reasonable to repeal it if that is the case?

And just like many social issues of today, why is it so “urgent” to do this now?  Our military has existed for well over 200 years.   It is quite arguable that America, for many years, has had one of the best fighting forces on earth.    And it has all been achieved without mandating by law that the sexual preferences of military members must be out in the open in the name of “integrity” and “rights”.  

Just as the culture, society, traditions and founding documents of this country have sustained us for over 200 years without so-called “gay marriage”, the purposes and mission of the US Military and its members have excelled for over 200 years without open homosexuality.

Why is it so darned important now — in 2010 — in the midst of two wars to heap a huge left-leaning social change onto our military, particularly when those serving honorably don’t want it? 

I believe that DADT should not be repealed.  I do understand that decent people can disagree on this policy.   It is not hateful or bigoted for those with strong religious beliefs or lengthy military backgrounds, as two examples, to oppose gays serving openly in the military.   And it is not unreasonable for me to understand the viewpoint of those who may believe that the repealing DADT is worthwhile.

But, as in the gay marriage debate, many who push for the gay agenda, do so by getting personal and calling the opposition names instead of understanding the values for which they may be espousing.

Good example comes from blogger CDR Salamander.  CDR Salamander is for repealing DADT, but can see where Admiral Mullen’s statement on the subject offers nothing positive, but rather makes its personal by accusing the oppostition of being without “integrity”.  From CDR Salamander:

I support the repeal of DADT – but I also think that those who want to keep it are on balance people with the best interests of our nation at heart. Good people can disagree on issues of substance.

I don’t know what he was trying to do – but Admiral Mullen just made it personal, and that is sad.

“No matter how I look at the issue,” Mullen said, “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” Noting that he was speaking for himself and not for the other service chiefs, Mullen added: “For me, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

I suppose that the very Navy that has promoted the Admiral to a high rank, has been without integrity for its entire existence then?   What does that make Admiral Mullen for spending his entire career in leadership of an institution that, in his words, is lacking integrity?   And as for the lying — DADT does not require anyone to lie.  There is no asking, so there is no lying.

Herschel Smith at Captain’s Journal has a view against repealing DADT….and he doesn’t engage in personal attacks against those who think otherwise.  His reasoning makes sense:

Now for my own views.  I thought about this position within the context of the only exception that I can think of, namely, marriage.  Men and women are allowed to be married in the military.  But marriage is not performed by the Marine Corps or Army.  It is performed and recognized within and by states which have laws that govern such things.  Imposing homosexual marriage on a branch of the service just to say that there is no exception to the way gays and heterosexuals are treated under DADT is a false dilemma.  It is imposing a foreign problem on the military – a consideration that should be irrelevant to the conversation.

In a republic such as ours, laws are changed by legislative process which usually begins with advocacy.  One group or another wants a law changed or enacted, and that group presses the issue.  If gays want to marry, changing DADT isn’t the way to go.  Changing laws is the way to go.  No gay marriage (insofar as DADT applies) in the military (similar to no gay marriage in most states)  is an output (or outcome) of the debate, not an input to it.

In summary, DADT is the perfect solution to the issue.  There is to be no sexual relations with other service members, and no discussion of it.  This is true regardless of orientation.  DADT is a subset of that regulation, not an exception to it.  It doesn’t prevent gays from serving in the military.  Its revocation would serve no useful function, and therefore TCJ opposes its revocation unless someone can come up with something better than the false mantra that some service members must “lie about who they are.”

I’m sure this is a debate that will rage on this year.  But regardless of where you stand on the issue, you must ask yourself, “Why now and why make major social change in the midst of two wars, not to mention the pressing issues at home?”   Makes no sense.

UPDATE 2/8/10: From the blogger Villainous Company comes some interesting statistics on discharges from the military over the course of the last 30 years.  Result:

Note that in no year did DADT discharges reach even one-tenth of one percent of the active forces.

If all the losses since 1994 were combined into a single year, they still don’t come to even 1% of the total force structure.

At Villainous Company they also compared the DADT stat of  less than 1/10th of 1 percent for discharges to non-deployable women because of pregnancy.  Depending on the branch of armed services 5-26% of women are non-deployable due to pregnancy.

So VC asks the legitimate question of the military commanders who believe the military would be so weakened by continuing DADT:

If the military has decided it can easily tolerate having anywhere from 5-26% of our forces in a non-deployable status due to pregnancy, why are losses of under 1/10th of one percent unsupportable?

The answer is because repealing DADT is 99.99999% political and an attempt at further social experimentation in the military at the expense of troop cohesiveness, enlistment, and retention.

In America — you read that right — your (religious) thoughts can now be criminalized

Today, the Senate voted to expand hate crimes legislation….the House has already passed a similar bill, so this gross attack on free speech and thought will soon be moving to Obama’s desk!

Very cynically, the Senate hate crimes legislation, which couldn’t get passed on its own account, was inserted into the Defense Spending bill and passed today.

From WND:

A key Senate vote during the wee hours when most Americans were asleep has added the so-called “hate crimes” plan, which creates federal protections and privileges homosexuals and others who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, to a defense spending bill.

While there are procedural hurdles yet, opponents say they expect the proposal that essentially makes homosexuals a protected class of citizens in the United States soon will reach the desk of President Obama, who has lobbied for it.

The Senate passed the bill 63-28 with all but five Republicans voting against it.

From AP, about the bill:

People attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender would receive federal protections under a Senate-approved measure that significantly expands the reach of “hate crimes” law. The Senate bill also would make it easier for federal prosecutors to step in when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue those acts deemed to be hate crimes.

 Senate Democrats insist the hate-crimes amendment (S. 909) they attached to the defense appropriations bill won’t criminalize preaching or speaking out against homosexuality.

But Republican Senator Jim DeMint sees it differently:

But Sen. Jim DeMint said that since opposition to homosexuality is “a biblical concept,” the measure could “serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views lest the federal law enforcement come knocking at their door.” The South Carolina Republican asked, “Can priests, pastors, rabbis be sure that their preaching will not be prosecuted?


Opponents of the bill, including conservative religious groups, argued that it infringes on states’ rights and could intimidate free speech. “The bill could potentially imperil the free speech rights of Christians who choose to speak out against homosexuality — which could even be extended to preaching against it,” The Christian Coalition of America said in a statement.

Supporters countered that prosecutions under the bill can occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality, even if their statements are followed by another person committing a violent action.

To emphasize the point, the Senate passed provisions restating that the bill does not prohibit constitutionally protected speech and that free speech is guaranteed unless it is intended to plan or prepare for an act of violence.

Of course, a few weeks ago, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, saw it quite differently when asked if preachers would be protected under this bill….his answer was NO!

From WND on July 3:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister’s sermon about homosexuality would be protected by a proposed new federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn’t be.

The revelations come from Holder’s recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was taking comments on the so-called “hate crimes” proposal. It also was the subject of discussion on talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh’s show today.

“This is the question,” Limbaugh said. “[Sen.] Jeff Sessions [R-Ala.] presents a hypothetical where a minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality and is thereafter attacked … by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality. Is the minister protected?”

No, said Holder.

“Well, the statute would not – would not necessarily cover that. We’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends – is designed to cover. We don’t have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person’s desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute,” Holder stated.

So, basically, in other words, only blacks and those whose are sexually confused are covered under this law!!!!!!!!! 

More of Rush Limbaugh’s take on this:

Continued Limbaugh, “In other words: ministers and whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis, groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation. So hate crimes are reserved exclusively for blacks and homosexuals. Everybody else can get to the back of the bus on this one. “

Oh…and just so you know, those who risk and sacrifice their lives for our freedom are not a “protected class” according to AG Eric Holder:

Under questioning from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Holder admitted that “hate” was involved in a recent case in which a Muslim man attacked and killed a U.S. soldier. Still, soldiers are not among the protected classes.

“There’s a certain element of hate in that, I suppose,” Holder admitted, leading Coburn to conclude, “What we’re willing to do is elevate those crimes (verbal or physical attacks on homosexuals) over this very intended hate crime (a murder.)”

Coburn is right on…

As far as I am concerned, the Democrats can lie and act like this law will not allow prosecutions of pastors and those of faith….and they can act as if this is some sort of “civil rights” issue, but when the most powerful attorney in the country can approve of certain groups as the “protected class”, then I believe that we are leaving up to (perhaps political) judges to determine whether our thoughts and beliefs are crimes or not.

That is not America and it wipes out our First Amendment rights….How anyone can determine that this legislation is “fair” or “justice” is beyond me.  

Folks, our America is quickly turning into something we won’t recognize….a bunch of fringe, elitist liberals have taken the reigns of our country and the concepts of unalienable rights and freedom don’t seem to be in their vocabulary…unless to be used for politically motivated purposes.

What may happen when this bill becomes law?    Mark Steyn believes we continue a march to “soft despotism”..just look up to what has happened in Canada….From Mark Steyn, who has spoken many times on the same type of legislation that has prosecuted Believers in Canada:

 Jim DeMint speakson the appallingly drafted “hate crimes” legislation whose language opens all kinds of doors, most of them unconstitutional. Senator DeMint also references various advances in “thought crime” from Europe and Canada, most of which will come as no surprise to readers of my posts in the Corner. On the one hand, it’s good to see them raised on the floor of the United States Senate. On the other, the fact that they need to be raised in the Senate at all is a bleak comment on the remorseless march of soft despotism.

Presidential Election Issues Voter Guide

I received this voter guide from the American Family Association (AFA)…thought it would be a good thing to pass along….

McCain is first column Obama is second column…..Stark differences between the two on the issues.  And don’t forget Obama’s Tax Plan, which will take a big step in moving America into being a Socialist nation!

HOMOSEXUALITY   Click on candidate positions for source information. McCAIN OBAMA
Federal Protection of Traditional Marriage
Limiting marriage to the union of one man
to one woman under federal law
Supports Opposes
State Constitutional Amendments that Protect Traditional Marriage
Limiting marriage to the union of one man
to one woman under state law
Supports Opposes
Teaching of Homosexuality in Public Schools
Use of materials that encourage or support
homosexuality as a positive lifestyle
Opposes Supports
Hate Crime Laws
Legislation that criminalizes certain actions or
statements on the basis of sexual orientation
Opposes Supports
Homosexual Adoption
Expanding laws to permit adoption by homosexual couples
Opposes Supports
Constitutional Right to Abortion
Roe v. Wade was correctly decided
Opposes Supports
Protecting Infants Born Alive
Laws requiring protection for infants born alive
born alive as a result of a botched abortion
Supports Opposes
Prohibiting Partial-Birth Abortion
Laws banning the procedure known
as partial-birth abortion
Supports Opposes
Making it a Crime to Cross State Lines
To Obtain Abortions for Minors

Transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion
without the minor´s parents´ consent should be criminalized.
Supports Opposes
Nomination of Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices
Will nominate judges who will interpret
the Constitution as written
Supports Opposes
Private Handgun Ownership
Interprets Second Amendment as guaranteeing
the right to own and use handguns for self-defense
Supports Opposes
Allowing Parents to Exercise School Choice
Government vouchers allowing parents to place
children in school of their choice
Supports Opposes
Immigration Reform and Border Security
Secure U.S. borders before granting some form
of amnesty to illegal immigrants living in U.S.
Supports Supports
Government Control of Health Care
Government funded or regulated health care
Opposes Supports
Reducing U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil
By lifting ban on off-shore drilling for oil and gas
Supports Opposes