I have now been certified as an official write-in candidate for The U.S. House of Representatives for District 19 for Texas!
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/write-in-ballot-cert-2014.pdf
I also have a new blog site for the campaign. It is:
http://votevance.blogspot.com
—
Please continue to pray for Dr. Kent Brantly and all those involved with the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
—
www.amazon.com has the exclusive right to sale my e-books in its Kindle Store.
Click on the book icon (picture) on the right to go directly to the Amazon site for that particular book
—
Primaries in September:
18) Louisiana Primary: November 4, 2014 ~ Congressional Run-Off (if needed): December 6, 2014
************************************************************************
Rob Maness | U.S. Senate – Louisiana
Primary is November 4 which is election day!
Website: http://www.robmaness.com/
Donate: http://www.robmaness.com/donate/
************************************************************************
Joni Ernst | U.S. Senate - Iowa
Donate: https://secure.senateconservatives.com/step1?layout=ernst&c=b8c4e2995ab851746f0a138e300bca6f”
Her website: http://www.joniforiowa.com/
Donate directly: https://secure.joniforiowa.com/donations/contribution/
************************************************************************
I heard on ABC radio news earlier today that President Obama has decided not to take action on amnesty for illegal aliens (“immigration reform” in Left euphemism) until after the 2014 election. Of course, the reason he decided to wait was because some Democrat Senators up for reelection this year are scared silly that they will lose the election if MORE amnesty is implemented before the election. They think the American voter is TOO STUPID to realize there is no difference whether an illegal act is implemented before or after an election. It is still an illegal act that will do great harm to America!
************************************************************************
From: http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/27/7-reasons-current-marriage-debate-nothing-like-debate-interracial-marriage/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonvqXKZKXonjHpfsX56OovXae%2FlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ARcpnI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D
“7 Reasons Why the Current Marriage Debate Is Nothing Like the Debate on Interracial Marriage
Ryan T. Anderson / @RyanT_Anderson / August 27, 2014
Is opposition to same-sex marriage at all like opposition to interracial marriage (Absolutely NOT!—my addition)?
One refrain in debates over marriage policy is that laws defining marriage as the union of male and female are today’s equivalent of bans on interracial marriage (Ridiculous argument! It is the old apple/oranges analogy!—my addition) . Some further argue that protecting the freedom to act publicly on the basis of a religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman is like legally enforcing race-based segregation (Also ridiculous!—my addition). This leads some people to think that the government is right to fine a New York family farm $13,000 for declining to host a lesbian wedding in their barn (They are very wrong!—my addition).
These claims are wrong on several counts, as I explain in my Backgrounder: ‘Marriage, Reason, and Religious Liberty: Much Ado About Sex, Nothing to Do with Race.’ Here are the top seven reasons why:
1) Support for marriage as the union of man and woman has been a near human universal. Great thinkers throughout human history—and from every political community up until the year 2000—thought it reasonable to view marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife, father and mother. That belief is shared by the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions; by ancient Greek and Roman thinkers untouched by these religions; and by various Enlightenment philosophers. It is affirmed by canon, common and civil law and by ancient Greek and Roman law (And most importantly, it is GOD ordained! Of course, they could all be wrong EXCEPT for GOD!—my addition).
2) Bans on interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws, by contrast, were historical anomalies. These bans were aspects of a much larger, insidious movement that denied the fundamental equality and dignity of all human beings and forcibly segregated citizens. When these interracial marriage bans first arose in the American colonies, they were inconsistent not only with the common law inherited from England, but also with the customs of prior world history, which had not banned interracial marriage. These bans were based not on reason, but on prejudiced ideas about race that emerged in the modern period and that refused to regard all human beings as equal. This led to revisionist, unreasonable conclusions about marriage policy (And both before and after the Civil War, these bans and laws were enacted by Democrats!—my addition).
3) Great thinkers—including champions of human rights—knew that gender matters for marriage, and none thought that race does. Searching the writings of Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, Maimonides and Al-Farabi, Luther and Calvin, Locke and Kant, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., one finds that the sexual union of male and female goes to the heart of their reflections on marriage but that considerations of race with respect to marriage never appear (And the greatest of them all—JESUS, the SON of GOD!—my addition). Only late in human history do political communities prohibit intermarriage on the basis of race. Bans on interracial marriage had nothing to do with the nature of marriage and everything to do with denying dignity and equality before the law (Based upon race and not on sex!—my addition).
4) Even cultures that embraced same-sex relationships did not treat them as marriages. (There was no need! There are no children!—my addition) Far from having been devised as a pretext for excluding same-sex relationships—as some now charge—marriage as the union of husband and wife arose in many places over several centuries entirely independent of, and well before any debates about, same-sex relationships. Indeed, it arose in cultures that had no concept of sexual orientation and in some that fully accepted homoeroticism and even took it for granted. Bans on interracial marriage, by contrast, were the result of racism and nothing more.
5) Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. The melanin content of two people’s skin has nothing to do with their capacity to unite in the bond of marriage as a comprehensive union naturally ordered to procreation (Of course not! Good luck two males; two females! It can not be done! There is none so blind as those who will not see!—my addition). The sexual difference between a man and a woman, however, is central to what marriage is. Men and women regardless of their race can unite in marriage, and children regardless of their race deserve moms and dads. To acknowledge such facts requires an understanding of what marriage is (AND common sense! Which the Left lacks or cares not about! They are agenda driven!—my addition).
6) Jim Crow laws were meant to divide the races, but marriage law unites men to women and children to their parents. Marriage has everything to do with uniting the two halves of humanity—men and women, as husbands and wives and as fathers and mothers—so that any children born of their union will know and be loved by the man and woman who gave them life (Of course! If not for children, would there be a reason for marriage?—my addition). This is why principle-based policy has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The argument over redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is one over the nature of marriage. Same-sex marriage is the result of revisionism about marriage.
7) The Supreme Court was correct in striking down bans on interracial marriage but it should not redefine marriage. (It CAN NOT REDEFINE MARRIAGE!—my addition) In Loving v. Virginia, the Court found bans on interracial marriage to be premised on ‘the doctrine of White Supremacy.’ The Court found ‘no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.’ Indeed, earlier this summer, Judge Paul Niemeyer of the 4th Circuit Court explained that ‘Loving simply held that race, which is completely unrelated to the institution of marriage, could not be the basis of marital restrictions.’ But this does not require redefining marriage. Niemeyer concludes: ‘To stretch Loving’s holding to say that the right to marry is not limited by gender and sexual orientation is to ignore the inextricable, biological link between marriage and procreation that the Supreme Court has always recognized (Of course it is! They want their perverted sin to be sanctioned by the State!—my addition).’
Given that our current debates are nothing like the debates over interracial marriage, here are three action items:
1) Marriage policy should be worked out by the people. Judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the Constitution (Because they obviously ARE NOT!—my addition). The courts should uphold the freedom of the American people and their elected representatives to make marriage policy. We do not need a court-imposed 50-state solution (We do not need a court imposed solution in any State! Nor should that be the case!—my addition). The courts should not force states to abandon caution in the face of a social experiment like the redefinition of marriage.
2) While Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationships. (The first part is very debatable! The second part is not! The Constitution protects religious belief!—my addition) Whatever one believes about marriage and however government defines it, there is no compelling state interest in forcing every citizen to treat a same-sex relationship as a marriage when this would violate their religious or other conscientious beliefs.
3) Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. It is reasonable for citizens to believe that marriage is the union of a man and woman. When citizens lead their lives and run their businesses in accord with this belief, they deny no one equality before the law. All Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman without fear of government penalty (If not, it is the government as oppressor not those who are following their religious beliefs!—my addition).
Read more about this in the Backgrounder: ‘Marriage, Reason, and Religious Liberty: Much Ado About Sex, Nothing to Do with Race.’”
Constitutionally, the federal courts have NO basis for redefining marriage or for even taking a case dealing with “marriage” that is different from traditional marriage!
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT!
If not now, when?
If not now, why?
If not us, who?
—
The Obama Administration: How NOT to govern a nation!
CLOSE THE BORDER! NO REFUGEE STATUS!
NO AMNESTY! DEPORT THEM ALL!
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT!
Impeachment IS the answer!
Galatians 6: 7-9 (NIV)
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.”
NEVER GIVE UP! NEVER SURRENDER! In the end, VICTORY belongs to GOD and HIS people! HIS people are, by definition, CHRISTIANS! Followers of JESUS, the CHRIST!
Impeach Barack Hussein Obama!
Impeach Barack Hussein Obama!
Impeach Barack Hussein Obama!
************************************************************************
Germany woman stands up against Islam invasion
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=814230481935684
************************************************************************
Conservatism is calling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42JK3ukEIbo#t=97
************************************************************************
An abortionist doctor who changed to pro-life. It is just under 17 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiS-d7Jp5dk&list=PLXCGMTF9gXn0hBCWtZ2tH984nK0VmGg9c&index=1
************************************************************************
Texas Senator Ted Cruz—The Cruz Missile: “Vote Harry Reid Out!”
http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/ted-cruz-flays-harry-reid-over-bill-of-rights/#ooid=BxdnR5bzpeZSjUTiYsD3zTCGhILw4g6K
************************************************************************
Why SHE needs a gun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUAL6ie1ufc
What SHE should have done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTOLSmxqcMo
************************************************************************
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin—up for reelection this year—compares U.S. soldiers to those of Nazi Germany!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqIlXfkylD4
