Posted on 07/15/2004 4:29:58 PM PDT by sandlady
About Congress.org
Congress.org is a service of Capitol Advantage, a private, non-partisan company that specializes in facilitating civic participation. It is powered by the award-winning CapWiz™ system.
Congress.org allows users to:
Identify and contact elected leaders in Congress, the White House, and state legislatures
Post letters online in Letters to Leaders and read what other Americans are saying to elected officials
Create and post Soapbox action alerts to enlist others on your issue.
Have letters printed and hand-delivered to Congress (there is a fee for this Extra Impact service)
Find and contact local and national media by ZIP code or by state with Media Guide
Have your representative's votes sent to you weekly via e-mail with MegaVote
Search alerts and take action in the Issues and Action area (contact Capitol Advantage to get your organization's alerts on Congress.org, Yahoo!, MSN, AOL and more sites).
Congress.org is a public service of Capitol Advantage and is powered by the award-winning Capwiz™ grassroots advocacy solution. Capwiz is used by over 1200 leading non-profits, trade associations and media websites including AOL, Yahoo!, and MSN. If you would like to test drive Capwiz for your own organization, complete this form and we'll have a Capwiz site customized just for you in just one business day. Elected officials and candidates who wish to update their information on Congress.org, please email our Research Department.
© 2004 Capitol Advantage LLC. (terms of use)
Privacy Policy
I'm sure some of you know about and maybe use this organization.
I followed a link to a page about Corrine Brown (D-FL 3rd) who, while debating today, "got up and accused the Republicans leading the debate on the other side of participating in a "coup d'etat" in 2000."
The house voted 219-189 to strike it from the record. She was forbidden to speak on the floor of the house for the rest of the day.
I often consider that some democrats are more conservative than they know. This is the best pro-family argument I've read in a long time. I wonder why he considers himself a Democrat. At least he knows he has a choice and isn't bound to the wrong party!
This is worth another bump.
Just vote your common sense. It's all good.
You are sooooooo right about that. I think I will ask that of my Demo friends this weekend.
Just spent some time on the links there and couldn't find where it said he was a democrat. I wondered about it. Looks like the article titles are each side of the fence.
I'm confident the author of this rant will do just that and hopefully, convince other decent dems to do the same.
You may be right but these bits had me thinking he had had a change of heart:
"I think we have reached a point in time when committed Christians, who believe in the Bible, in traditional moral values expressed in the 10 Commandments, and believe in family values based on marriage between one man and one woman, can no longer in good conscience, vote for most Democratic candidates."
"Am I saying that voting for the Republican Party is going to solve all the country’s moral problems? No, I do not believe this to be the case. The Republican Party does not embody all that is morally right and good. But more members of this party seem to have respect for the historical reality that this country was founded by men who had a profound belief in God and entrusted “their lives and their sacred fortunes” to his care in establishing the American Republic."
"Not only is this an issue for Christians, but for Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Shinto’s, and practicioners of other religions."
The only problem is our country was not founded as a religious country, but as a Christian country.
Maybe he's a LaRouche guy!!!
In any case, he might be limiting his audience or customers by choosing the Republicans over the Dems. I don't think he wrote the piece, but only offers the soapbox column for any contributor's viewpoint. What think?
Evidenced by the fact that all the signers of the U.S. Constitution testified that their Lord was Jesus Christ.
"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."
If an aethiest or non-Christian were among the signers, wouldn't they have asked for a more generic, non-Christian date in the document?
"If an aethiest or non-Christian were among the signers, wouldn't they have asked for a more generic, non-Christian date in the document?"
Had they asked, do you think the majority would have bowed down to their demands as they do today? I think not. I dare say he would have probably been dismissed from the meeting. Knowing how serious our fathers were about having God's help in the design of our country, they would not have wanted an aetheist in their presence.
So now we have 'Common Era (C.E.) and 'Before Common Era (B.C.E.)' as designators. Next thing you know, they'll want to change it to 'Uncommon Era', or 'Mohammed Era,' or 'Rev. Moon Era.'
1952--US Supreme Court defines the Separation of Church and State.
"We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being...No Constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects...the First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State."
1891- (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 US 457, 36 L ed 226, Justice Brewer)
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian...this is a religioius people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation...we find everywhere a clear definition of the same truth...this is a Christian nation."
I completely agree. I think the author was appealing to the morality side of the other religions. How can any religion reconcile itself with the destructive policies of the left?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.