Friday, February 27, 2009

San Diego Tea Party Pictures

We went, we saw, we conquered.  Or at least I’d like to thing we made some sort of impression on the people who claim to represent us.  Over at TCOT Report, they are being swamped with images and reports from around the country and estimates currently stand at somewhere around 25,000 poor fiscal policy protestors.  What an impressive number for a widespread and spontaneous grassroots uprising.

In San Diego, I was impressed by the size of the crowd in attendance.  SD Police estimated the number to be near 600.  I was also impressed by the diversity of the crowd.  Families, moms with strollers, kids running around, elderly, businessmen, concerned citizens all.  Respectful yet relentless.  These are the people who recognize and live financial responsibility and are chilled by the deficit-increasing scheming being pushed through government these days.

Here’s to good fiscal policy, or as Michelle Malkin says, “Fiscal responsibility is the new counterculture….A grass-roots revolt against the culture of entitlement. The spendzillas in Washington do not speak for us.”

Here are a few pictures I took while I was “revolting.”  There are many more pictures and accounts to be viewed and read at Michelle Malkin and TCOT Report.  The turnout has been inspiring!

“Repeal or Retire”

“We’re being set up for Socialism!”

Rally for the American Stars and Stripes North of the Star of India

These are the grassroots; America’s hope.  Good, clean, regular everyday folk.  I heard this lady mention that her children were the future leaders of America and one man suggested that he wished they could be our leaders right now; that they’d probably do a better job than our current ones.  I’m with him.  I am impressed by mothers everywhere who are recognizing the need to train up future civic leaders with strong morals and standards.  These kids will have a heaping mess to clean up if we don’t stand up and do our part to stay the hand of fiscal irresponsibility right now.

“No, no – B.H.O.  No taxation without showing your birth certificate.”

My personal favorite: “Commander in Thief.”  Ha ha!

That’s all for today, Pearl People.  Much love and success.  Thank God for your job if you still have one!


More pictures from the San Diego Tea Party here.

Tips for a Great Tea Party

Tips for a Great Tea Party
For all of us attending Tea Parties around the country tomorrow (“today,” depending on when you read this), here are some great tips found at Instapundit:

SOME ADVICE ON FUTURE “TEA PARTY” PROTESTS, from a media producer who attended the Overland Park affair:

I attended the invigorating protest outside Congressman Dennis Moore’s Overland Park, Kansas office yesterday.

I hoped 10-15 souls might show up. I was thrilled to see hundreds. Here are some suggestions. I don’t really want my name used. Sadly, it could really hurt my business, which is already hurting.

As a professional media producer, here are my concerns:

1. Incoherent message - the signs were all over the place. There were lots of agendas. That’s fine. The color and signage look good on TV.

But, when it came to the microphone - the overall message was tepid and unsure.

2. Create a theme - like “We want Senator So-and-So to resign for voting for this bill.” Or, “We want the Stimulus Repealed!” “Start Over.” Have a definitive purpose to your Assembly. A central theme will also help public speakers to focus. And don’t be afraid to personalize this. Put it on your Senators, Congress people, and the President. That’s what they are doing to anyone who objects.

3. Speakers not prepared for the media - the organizer was asked to name some specific objectionable items in the stimulus. She couldn’t do it. I doubt many of us could.

If you are an organizer, or the “face” of the event - take an hour to prepare. You don’t need to know everything about the stimulus. Just find 2 or 3 things - hard facts - you can point to and credibly say - these are wrong, wasteful spending items. Or, these items grow government, not the economy. It is critical.

4. Pass out talking points, just in case Joe or Jane Protestor gets buttonholed by a reporter.

5. This is all about image. If we don’t present the media with a professional, organized and, unfortunately, scripted image, they are going to make their own, and it won’t be favorable.

6. Recruit some help to pack the area around people being interviewed for background. God love the guy in the crazy Uncle Sam suit, and we certainly need the Minute Men, but these folks will quickly become THE story because they are colorful or controversial i.e., Good TV. Welcome their support. Maybe give them a minute on the mic. But I recommend trying to pack in mainstream, boring looking, and diverse Americans around the camera. No offense to anyone. Anytime a TV camera comes out, a certain number and type of attention seeker will flock to it. Now is the time for Grandma and Grandpa, the Plumber, the Young Executive, and the Homeschooling Mom to flock to the camera as background. Don’t be shy. Remember, how do you want your cause to be presented by the media? As crazies? Or as Concerned Neighbors?

7. Have an Agenda and a Time. We’re going to Assemble at this Time. We’re going to have a Sign-In Table. We’re going to have a Sign-Making Area. We’re going to have speakers at 10:30. We’re going to March to the Senator’s Office at this time and demand she resign. We’re going to end with Chants, and a Call-to-Action for the next Protest. That, and Protestors want to know what’s going on. If they become unsure, they leave. Organization wins, and it also intimidates the opposition. And the opposition is going to start showing up.

8. Share the Day’s Agenda with the Media. You have to create your own press. The event in Overland Park was HUGE, but only one news station came out to cover it, and there’s not even a photo in today’s Sunday paper. Sell it to them. They love good stories.

That’s it. I hope this helpful. These things are only going to get bigger, and people need to realize that a great responsibility comes with this wonderful opportunity. Get a Message. And Get It Out.

Happy protesting folks!  I’ll see you there.


Wednesday, February 25, 2009

I LOVE this. It is so accurate.


Democracy got stomped on.  Squashed.  Ignored.  Disregarded.


I also find this comment from The Rainbow Reclaimed to be very telling:

This comment is in reference to SR 7, so the sister resolution to HR 5

I just called leno's office to make sure he was the author of sr 7. He is.

I couldn't help asking the staffer: Why does senator Leno think prop 8 violates the equal protection clause?

She mumbled off some answer.

I said: "The prop 8 definition covers everyone regardless of sexual
orientation, race, gender, etc.

Then I asked: How come siblings can't get married, but it's okay for
same gender couples?

She laughed.

I said: Really, why don't we let siblings get married?

She said: Well, I think it's unhealthy.

I asked: Why?
Then I started to explain, that measures could be taken to prevent the
birth of children with birth defects.

Then she went on a rant. And then she hung up.

I plan on telling my own reps this story, and asking them to ask Leno and other Dems why this resolution is even taking up CA legislature time.

If you'd like to ask Senator Leno the same question (or different):

Well, go to it, people.  Let’s take our “representatives” to task.


Friday, February 20, 2009

Speechless: Silencing Christians; 12-yr-old Pro-Life Speech; CNN Rejects Pro-Life Ad; HR5 Makes Waves; Jonathan Lopez Sues LA City College Over Same-Sex Marriage Speech

Attacks on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy, and family are heating up. We live in increasingly troubled times. Are you prepared for what’s to come if you fail to speak up and stand out?

Watch Speechless: Silencing Christians. This new TV special has yet to find a home on-air as station after station refuses to allow it. In today’s atmosphere of media bias and betrayal, if you discover that a station doesn’t want you to hear something, I’d suggest you actively seek it out as it is probably something worth hearing that contains something worthy of awareness. This is long, but not too long. Grab some popcorn, a soda, and your significant other. Cuddle by the computer. Make it a date and stick it out. It is well worth watching if you’d like to be educated about the gay agenda that homosexuals eternally and sarcastically claim does not exist. (For more on the gay agenda as outlined in After the Ball, click here, here, and here).

Watch this 12-year-old, 7th grader speak out on the issue of abortion. She is a superb advocate for life.

And in another case of screaming media bias, CNN has now joined the ranks of TV stations boycotting the amazing Pro-Life ad. Again, if the media doesn’t want you to hear it, you’d better tune in, because it’s probably something important for the regular, Joe-shmoe, American public to hear. What was CNN’s reason for rejection, you ask? Here’s a direct quote: “Thank you for your patience. We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved.” The only thing is, it’s not true. It’s a blatant lie as exposed by CatholicVote. See here:

The standard CNN used to reject our ad did not prevent the network from airing a 2005 ad sponsored by the pro-abortion group NARAL that suggested that then Judge John Roberts supported violence against abortion clinics. described the NARAL ad this way: "An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber' and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans' It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The ad is false.'"

Several prominent pro-abortion supporters condemned the ad, including President Clinton's Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. The commercial, which attributed views to John Roberts that were not his, was ultimately pulled from the air not by CNN, but by NARAL.

At the time CNN issued a statement saying: "CNN accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance."

CNN is willing to run ads insinuating that a federal judge supports violent criminal activity, but it won't allow an ad celebrating the potential of all human life, including Barack Obama? Not to mention, we are fairly sure NARAL didn't get permission from John Roberts to run their ad.

So, what do we do? Write to CNN President Jonathan Klein at And, of course, watch the ad again! :0)

HR 5 is making waves among supporters of democracy. Watch our non-democratic, love-touting California legislators in action right here! (And don’t forget to hone your ears for the lovely derision with which opponents of HR 5 are treated by member of Equality California (EQCA) – psst, it’s not that hard to catch).

And last, but certainly not least, is the case of Jonathan Lopez who is suing his city college over his stumped 1st Amendment rights to free speech. Reports the LA Times article:

Student Jonathan Lopez says his professor called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to "ask God what your grade is," the suit says.

Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to higher-ups.

[hat tip: Kingfisher Column]

Well folks, that’s quite the line-up if you ask me. Religion, speech, democracy, and family; they’re all being attacked with increased fervor. We would be wise to be aware. Is awareness enough, though?


Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Lobbying in Sacramento – HR 5 Passes

CA Capitol
I’m back.  We’re back.  I took a lobbying trip up to Sacramento with my blogging buddy, Beetle.  The drive was lengthy, but the company was the best.  My boys made some best friends out of Beetle’s kiddos, and Beetle and I got to yakkity yak for the duration of our loooooong round trip. :0)

So, the 17th dawned cold and rainy.  No one was positioned outside the capitol building, No or Yes.  The Assembly Judiciary Committee room filled up quickly and flowed over into a balcony room which also filled to the hilt.  We were in the third, yes third, overflow area located in the cafe: 90% Equality Network America, 10% Prop 8 supporters.  We watched the entire proceeding on a television.

I wish I had good news to report, but, not surprisingly, it’s just more of the same.  As I watched gay “marriage” supporters approach the mic and listened to their heart-wrenching pleadings in support of HR 5, my stomach was turned by the extreme emotionality of it all.  Story after story surfaced about love this and love that.  And then came the Prop 8 supporters, and the appeals were for our legislators to respect the vote of the people…the people they represent.

90% emotionality
10% democracy

Also not surprising was the fact that the HR 5 supporters, advocates of gay “marriage,” had to be chastised on three separate occasions for their disrespect during opponents’ testimonials.  Too much snorting and snickering throughout.  When one woman introduced herself as a mother of eight, our overflow area erupted rudely with all-out, mocking laughter.  I was perturbed by the lack of respect.  And, in the end, it was clear that while the legislators were adamant about maintaining a respectful atmosphere during the proceedings, they didn’t actually care one whit about democracy.  As was predictable, their vote followed precisely along party lines and the resolution passed with flying colors (pun intended).

Pearl’s summary:

I loved meeting Beetle’s family; they are awesome.  I enjoyed being present for a process I’ve never witnessed.  And I just want to remind everyone that our government is not in the business of governing based on what’s “fair” (or it didn’t used to be, anyway).  In fact, I’m 99.99999% certain that the word “love” is not present anywhere in our Constitution.  What it absolutely is built on is democracy, and yesterday democracy was categorically ignored…again.  Bummer.  Big bummer for our state.


P.S. The senate hearing was cancelled due to ongoing and pressing budget discussions.  Having just arrived home, I have not had a chance to research whether that has occurred or not.  Though I can imagine that the results will be similar, if not identical, I would like to hear nonetheless.  If you have any updated info, please post it in the comments section!

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Gay Rights “Lobbyists” to Descend on CA Capitol

From SFGate

Gay rights supporters have won key victories in the state Legislature in recent years, including two approvals of a law giving same-sex couples marriage rights. Both were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

On Tuesday, thousands of those supporters will come to Sacramento from around the state for what they are calling "lobby day."

Their goal: win support of lawmakers for a resolution opposing the legality of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment passed by voters in November that bans same-sex marriage.

The resolution states that the Legislature "opposes Proposition 8 because it is an improper revision, not an amendment, of the California Constitution."

That is one of the arguments being made to the California Supreme Court in a bid to overturn Prop. 8.

Both houses will hear the resolution Tuesday. It was written by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano and state Sen. Mark Leno, both San Francisco Democrats.

Equality California, a statewide gay rights organization, is sponsoring the lobbying day as it has in the past and expects the largest crowd ever, said Vaishalee Raja, a spokeswoman for the group.

She said the goal of the day is not to persuade the court, but that the passage of Prop. 8 "is one of those things that how could the Legislature not go on the record about?"


Beetle Blogger

The Digital Network Army, United Families International and Capital Resource Institute are joining forces this Tuesday to rally for families at the Capitol Building in Sacramento.  Both state houses are drafting official resolutions condemning the passage of Proposition 8 and urging the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people AGAIN.

Two statewide elections with the majority voices of millions were not loud enough to turn the heads of our representatives in Sacramento, so we’re bringing the voice of the people to Sacramento.  Come Rally with us for Marriage and Families!  Help remind the Senators and Assemblymen that we are watching…because there’s nothing more important to our nation than its families.

Protect Marriage!  Protect Families!  Protect Democracy!

If our representatives are going to turn their backs on the people who voted for them, let them do it to our faces in the light of the cameras, not in a silent corner.

Stop! CA Voted! 

DNA Team Captain


Ok, so the most recent word is that the opposition is going to be busing people in from San Francisco for the hearings so seating at the actual hearing may be limited, come early. If you have kids, bring water bottles and a few snacks, comfortable shoes. Security is tight there, so remember, no pocket knives etc.

If we have more people come to the hearing than we can fit in the room, we’ll hold a concurrent rally outside the capitol building with a petition signing.  No body will be wasted!  Kids and families are welcome!  Come and be heard!  Wear your yellow shirt if you like!  If it rains, bring an umbrella, we’ll rally in the hallways!

Proposition 8 Hearings will be held in these rooms:

HR 5
Tuesday, February 17
State Capitol
Room 4202

SR 7
Tuesday, February 17
State Capitol
Room 4203

Prop 8-7042 copy2 
Pearl’s take:

Looks like it’s going to be “fun.”  I remember my Prop 8 sign waving days with No on 8 sign wavers and adherents harassing, intimidating, threatening, hollering, cussing out, and goading Yes on 8 folks.  Let’s hope that this time protestors on the No side are a bit more civilized.

Please don’t forget that even if you cannot make it to the Capitol to personally represent your Yes vote, you can still phone your legislative reps to let them know exactly how you feel about these resolutions.  Kingfisher has an easy-to-read list here.

And join the “Support Prop 8 Rally” Facebook Event here!

See you at the Capitol on Tuesday!

Friday, February 13, 2009

Support Prop 8 Rally! Sacramento, CA - Tuesday Feb. 17th.

From Beetle Blogger


Go!  Rally!  Bring Your Signs and Spread the Word!
Sacramento, CA – Tuesday Feb. 17th, 10:30am
State Capitol

This resolution would put the Assembly on record as supporting the repeal of Proposition 8 and declaring that the initiative was an improper revision to the California Constitution. -Equality California Website

Dear California Supporters of the Family,
State Assembly and Senate Considering Resolution Encouraging State Supreme Court to Overturn Prop 8!!!

SR7 and HR5

On Tuesday, February 17th at 10:30 am, The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing followed at 12:30 pm by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Proposition 8. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8. By issuing the resolution the Assembly will officially express its opposition to Proposition 8, calling for its repeal, and stating that it was an “improper revision” to the state constitution.

Read HR5 and Read SR7

Passing these resolutions flies in the face of the will of the voters.  Prop 8, was passed by a clear majority of California voters in November 2008. Fifty-two percent of California voters stood up to protect the family, which is the lynch pin of civilization. William Glaston, a former policy advisor to President Clinton, is quoted in the UFI Marriage Advantage Family Guide. He states, “Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike….Whether American society succeeds or fails in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern.”

Don’t let the Assembly take your vote away. Join us in protecting marriage, children and the future of family and our society.

What You Can Do

Attend the hearing. It is taking place Tuesday, February 17th at the state capitol in Sacramento. The Assembly hearing will be in room 4202 at 10:30 am. The Senate hearing will be in room 4203 at 12:30pm. We encourage you to make the trip. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family. To get driving directions and parking information follow the click on the links below:

For directions
For parking information

Call the members of the committees and fax letters asking them to vote no on HR5 and SR7

Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Julia Brownley
Phone: 916 319 2041
Fax: 916 319 2141

Noreen Evans
Phone: 916 319 2007
Fax: 916 319 2107

Mike Feuer (Chair)
Phone: 916 319 2042
Fax: 916 319 2142

Dave Jones
Phone: 916 319 2009
Fax: 916 319 2109

Steve Knight
Phone: 916 319 2036
Fax: 916 319 2136

Paul Krekorian
Phone: 916 319 2043
Fax: 916 319 2143

Ted Lieu
Phone: 916 319 2053
Fax: 916 319 2153

Bill Monning
Phone: 916 319 2027
Fax: 916 319 2127

Jim Nielsen
Phone: 916 319 2002
Fax: 916 319 2102

Van Tran
Phone: 916 319 2068
Fax: 916 319 2168

Senate Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on SR7

Ellen Corbett
Phone: 916 651 4010
Fax: 916 327 2433

Dean Florez
Phone: 916 651 4016
Fax: 916 327 5989

Tom Harman
Phone: 916 651 4035
Fax: 916 445 9263

Mark Leno
Phone: 916 651 4003
Mimi Walters
Phone: 916 651 4033
Fax: 916 445 9754

Please forward this to your friends and family members. We believe that through a grassroots movement, we can secure a safe future for families in our state.

United Families California

I’ll be there.  Will you?

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Freedom to Marry Week?

above the law


Same-sex couples set to rally for marriage rights

2/12/2009, 4:13 a.m. EST
The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Thousands of same-sex couples nationwide are prepared to apply for marriage licenses on Thursday — an exercise in legal futility.

The attempts are being undertaken to protest court and voter decisions restricting legal matrimony to opposite-sex couples.

Activists geared up for rallies at marriage bureaus or county clerks' offices in communities large and small — from New York, Arkansas, California and Florida to Kentucky and Nevada.

This week, which encompasses Lincoln's Birthday and Valentine's Day, marks the 12th annual Freedom to Marry Week, usually celebrated with marriage-license protests.

Same-sex partners and their non-gay friends, families and allies are demanding that no couple in a consensual, committed relationship be denied permission to marry — complete with the rights, protections and benefits the government assigns to the legal ritual.

This year's protests are more important than ever, said one New York organizer, because they come in the wake of California's Proposition 8 vote and just as New Yorkers look to their state Senate to pass legislation that could lead to legalized gay marriage.

"I want to have that option," said 23-year-old J. Heath Tucker, who doesn't want to get married now, but "when I find the person I fall in love with, I want to be able to get married."

He is a member of Join the Impact, a national community-based group that helped organize hundreds of people seeking licenses at the marriage bureau in lower Manhattan on Thursday.

This year's event "is more important because people had something given to them, then had it stripped away," Tucker said of California, where more than 18,000 same-sex couples were married last year.

[Read more…]

As per that last paragraph, I think it is important to remember that the fate of the “marriages” of those 18,000 same-sex couples has yet to be decided. 

So, throughout twelve years of “Freedom to Marry Week” observances, how has legalized homosexual “marriage” fared?  Perhaps this chart will give folks an idea of just how important marriage between one man and one woman is for Americans:

States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008

Voter-approved Bans on SSM 


Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Save Our Millions of Modern-Day Thumbelinas!

Thumbelina: a beloved children’s character, fairy wannabe, field-traveler with a thumb-sized stature.  She was loved, very loved, cherished, and sought after.  Kidnapped from her home by enamored Latino frogs, Thumbelina found herself wandering through a rugged and unforgiving world, thinking no one loved her and that she would never find her way back home and back to her handsome Prince Cornelius.  Cornelius, in the meantime, was romantically braving the frigid onset of winter to find and rescue his beloved Thumbelina.  The real-life tragedy here is that the cartoon character Thumbelina was and is more beloved than her infant, human, thumb-sized cohorts who are being aborted by the hundreds, even thousands each week around the globe.

Thumbelina's Mother Real-Life Thumbelinas

Time to mount your loyal bee and draw your princely sword to fly through the storm to the defense of our modern-day Thumbelinas who are being literally thrown to the terrible toads, beetles, and moles.

Thumbelina ToadThumbelina BeetleThumbelina Mole  

From United Families International

On December 10, 2008 a Pro-Life coalition including United Families International gathered at the UN to present a Pro-Life petition.  The reason for the petition was two fold:

  1. To celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  2. In response to a Pro-Abortion petition presented by Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International

The Pro-Life petition contained over 340,000 names gathered over a 60 day period, while the opposition petition claimed 651 names in nearly a year of work.  Due to the relatively short amount of time that the Pro-Life petition was available, United Families International and the Pro-Life coalition have decided to keep the petition open until September 2009 when it will be re-presented to the UN.  We invite all who believe in the sanctity of life to add their names to the International Petition to Protect Life.

The petition requests that all member nations and states interpret the UNDHR to mean that:

The right to life, liberty and security is for every person; that each child born or unborn, has the right to birth and a full, natural life. That a child has the right to a mother and a father, of full age, within the bonds of marriage defined as between a man and a woman.  And, that the parents have the right to raise and educate their children without any limitation due to race, religion, culture or nationality.

CLICK HERE to add your name to the petition and join Pro-Lifers around the globe in protecting life.

There is an immense possibility for a much happier ending for these sad, neglected Thumbelinas.

Cornelius_Thumbelina 12/08/2008 NEWS: Scott Lacey - This picture was taken three weeks after the birth of my daughter Ruby, just before setting out for a walk.
This photo is precious to me as it demonstrates the time in my life when life stopped being about me and became entirely about her.  Being someone she can trust, love, share with and laugh with; is an incredible gift.  She is my miracle.
I have been given the privilege of being her "dada", that makes this the most important role of my life and the role with the most expectations and rewards.
Scott Lacey
Father of Ruby Lacey (one in just under two weeks)
Ag Lacey []  

I signed. Have you?

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Stimulis: The Medical Prescription for Stimulating the Economy and Response to Obama’s Stimulus Bill.

Please forgive the brief, profane text at the very end of this clip.

Stimulis: Because all economies have performance issues.


Friday, February 6, 2009

David Ogden, Pres. Obama, and the Rude American Awakening that Lurks Around the Corner.

Obama the Closet Dictator
You know, I think Obama is utilizing Kirk and Madsen’s “jamming” technique, from After the Ball, to flash flood America with the most vile and corrupt of politicians and public officials. In the few months since he was voted into the formerly-esteemed office of the President of the United States, he has succeeded in desensitizing a nation to the most despicable of people by placing them and their wild ideas, in rapid succession, into high-ranking positions of influence in our government. This whole David Ogden appointment has me on edge (almost over the edge, really). I realized today that nothing Obama does is going to surprise me anymore, and that’s not a good thing. Don’t get me wrong; I’m still outraged. Just not surprised. And losing that sense of expectation is akin to losing the demand for Obama’s personal accountability and responsibility, and the ambition and drive to effect change. Getting to know our president’s public persona and agenda – his MO, his causes, crusades, etc. – and having it jammed down our throats on a regular basis through family-threatening, life-devaluing presidential appointments we have no control over, feels creepy and forced and…well…not so surprising anymore. But this is how bad people defeat and control everybody else. They make empty promises that speak right to the most central fear of an individual, converting that person by taking advantage of and manipulating their fear for personal gain. Then, once they have stolen the confidence of the fear-blinded little people, schmoozed the elite, and aspired to the highest position in the land, they power punch their agenda into existence and completion before anyone has even had a chance to blink, let alone squeak out an objection loud enough to be heard over the blind fervor of the masses. Sound familiar? Whole countries have been this dumb over and over again. Why do we Americans think we are immune to being conned and swindled just as the huddled and weary masses of other countries have been? How can we believe our Constitution, our democracy, is what will save us when we refuse to uphold our Constitution anymore?

We aren’t. And it won’t.

Pearl’s sworn statement of awareness, 2/6/2009:

I will not lose my sense of indignation over the intentional and selfish breakdown of marriage and family no matter if it comes from my fellow citizens, the president, or his “official” thugs.

I will not lose my sense of indignation over the devaluation of life no matter if it comes from my fellow citizens, the president, or his “official” thugs.

I will not lose my sense of indignation over the total disregard for parental and children’s rights no matter if it comes from my fellow citizens, the president, or his “official” thugs.

I will not lose my sense of indignation over the marketing of pernicious evils no matter if it comes from my fellow citizens, the president, or his “official” thugs.

I will not lose my sense of indignation over the increasingly overt attacks on religion no matter if they come from my fellow citizens, the president, or his “official” thugs.

I will not lose my sense of indignation over attempts to rewrite, nullify, or ill-interpret our nation’s sacred Constitution no matter if they come from my fellow citizens, the president, or his “official” thugs.

And I will take all that burning indignation, ball it up into a great, heaping, fiery wad of activism, and hurl it with a fury at breakdown, devaluation, disregard, marketing, attack, and subversion.

Essentially, I vow to never stop being surprised, indignant, and outraged at evil. And I vow to never stop exposing those people (and their agendas) who would lull Americans into a false sense of security just before slapping on the hand-cuffs, delivering them to a room devoid of all things pure and innocent, and declaring them eternal captives of “progression” and “free-thinking.”

I choose to remain a humble servant of tradition, value, and morality rather than a prisoner to the oxymoron that is “enlightenment.”

Advocating Awareness,


Thursday, February 5, 2009

Maureen Mullarkey, Chappaqua Artist of Gay Themes, Defends Prop 8 Donation.

Maureen Mullarkey Atlas Empress, by Maureen Mullarkey


CHAPPAQUA - Artist Maureen Mullarkey, known in the gay community for paintings depicting drag queens and scenes inspired by gay pride parades, responded to criticism of her donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California this week by attacking the intimidation of artists who supported Proposition 8.

Mullarkey said she supported the measure, which passed in November overturning an earlier court ruling legalizing gay marriage in California, because she believes "marriage is the union of husband and wife - a premise so simple, so fundamental that nature and civilization itself both testify to the truth of it."

Gay rights groups and Web commentators said Mullarkey was hypocritical to make money off gay people and then donate it to a cause that denying them what they consider a fundamental legal right.

Mullarkey likened the attacks to Nazi "brownshirt tactics."

"Artists are not in the habit of imposing ideological conformity on one another or demanding it from others," she said. "Moreover, regard for individual gay persons does not require assent to a politicized assault on bedrock social reality and the common good."

Bravo Maureen! I echo that last bit, “politicized assault on bedrock social reality and the common good.” So true. By the way, if you’re wondering why someone would want to paint images from a Pride Parade (because I did…wonder, that is), this is what she says on her website:

Why the Gay Pride Parade as a source of imagery?

Because it is marvelous spectacle, an iconographic lode. There is so much to look at. Art is not about “appreciating.” It is about looking. People get accustomed to viewing art through a filter of words: theories, press releases, the pieties of art appreciation. Spectacle cuts through the static.

But wouldn’t any parade do the same thing?

Not for me. I’ve never really like parades that much. How many marching bands can you take before your eyes glaze over? But when the majorette is a middle-aged man in a tutu and sneakers you know you are not in Kansas and you might want to stay awake.


Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Canadian Child Has Two Mommies and a Daddy: “Known Donors” and Recognized Parenthood Issues.

Two Mommies and Two Daddies “The precedent-setting court ruling that the agreement is not enforceable could open the door for a child to have three or four recognized parents in "known donor" situations.” *

Talk about confusing children….

Court Backs Parental Rights of Known Sperm Donor
Shannon Kari
National Post

For the first time in Canada a court has ruled on the legitimacy of a donor contract in determining the competing parental rights of a lesbian couple and a gay man who was the sperm donor.

The precedent-setting court ruling that the agreement is not enforceable could open the door for a child to have three or four recognized parents in "known donor" situations.

At the same time, it may also have a chilling effect on lesbian couples seeking a specific donor and who want their child to know the identity of the father.

The legal dispute involves a lesbian couple in Toronto and a gay man who agreed to be their sperm donor and play an active role as a parent. (The parties cannot be identified because there is a ban on any information that could identify the child.)

The couple and the man signed a "donor contract" before the child was born in 2002, which set out his rights as a "co-parent" including regular access as well as full custody if both women were to die. The agreement included a promise to try for a "three-way" adoption, which would have required a court challenge under the Charter of Rights, although this was never followed through.

The two women and the man are all highly educated professionals and the couple wanted the child to know her father and intentionally sought out a gay man as the donor.

"Given their options to have children, what we were offering might be interesting to [gay men], might be attractive to them, I mean their options are in some ways much bleaker than ours," one of the women told the court.

The friendship has deteriorated and the two women have tried to reduce the father's access to the child.

[

*Note: This could also be the case when a woman adopts lesbianism after a particularly traumatic divorce, resulting in a child having two mommies and a daddy and a step-mommy.  Or, vice versa, two daddies and a mommy and a step-daddy.  Or, let’s consider if both parents in a marriage decided to become homosexual (because, you know, society says it’s “okay”) causing a one man, one woman marriage to become two mommies and two daddies for baby Peter.  My goodness.  How can one possibly think any of these options are healthy for kids?  Let’s strive to perfect marriage not by adding more factors to the equation, but by perfecting the equation that already exists.  Let’s keep marriage between one man and one woman and let’s make divorce harder and provide more counseling services to struggling couples!


Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Should the LDS / Mormon Church Lose Its Tax-Exempt Status Over In-Kind Prop 8 Donations?

This write-up comes in the wake of a comment made on this previous post regarding the LDS Church’s recent statement correcting erroneous news reports by various mainstream media tyrants.

*Note: All opinions shared in this article are just that, opinions, my opinions. Any reference to the Church is merely my understanding and any mistake or misrepresentation is mine and not representative of or reflected on the Church. For official Church policy, doctrine, or statements, please visit the LDS Newsroom,, or contact LDS Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City directly.

Tax Exempt Status
Alllllrighty then, let’s talk tax-exempt status. Mind you, I am no tax expert, but I can research and read, and I’m sure the IRS is as good a place as any to get to the bottom of this tax-exempt status debate involving the LDS Church.

The most debated clause in the 501(c)(3), especially in the case of the LDS Church’s in-kind donations to defending marriage, is the designation of a tax-exempt organization having “no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office” (

First, let’s establish the fact that the 501(c)(3) does not have a definitive monetary substantiality test by which to weigh the lobbying contributions of churches. Furthermore, “there is no statutory or regulatory definition of the amount of legislative activity that would constitute a ‘substantial part’ of an organization’s activities” (

There are, however, two cases which have set precedents to which judges refer when scrutinizing the lobbying activities of a tax-exempt entity/organization/charity (in this case, a church).

In Seasongood v. Commissioner, the ruling “held that attempts to influence legislation that constituted five percent of total activities were not substantial.” This case, however, provides “limited guidance because the court’s view of what set of activities were to be measured is no longer supported by the weight of precedent. Moreover, it is not clear how the court arrived at the five percent figure” (

In Haswell v. United States, “the Court of Claims cited percentage figures in support of its determination that an organization’s lobbying activities were substantial. (The amount of the organization’s expenditures for lobbying activities ranged from 16.6 percent to 20.5 percent of total expenditures during the four years at issue.) While the court stated that a percentage test is only one measure of substantiality (and not, by itself, determinative), it held that these percentages were a strong indication that the organization’s purposes were no longer consistent with charity.” (

Okay, so what we have discovered so far is that if a church’s lobbying activities make up only 1% - 15% (to be safe) of its overall activity, its tax-exempt status is safe. As a general rule, then, looking to the Haswell precedent, any amount of activity falling at the 16% mark or above would be considered “a substantial part.” If, as was the case in Haswell v. United States, we were to judge based on “total expenditures during [time] at issue,” the LDS Church’s total in-kind donations would have had to have been in the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars considering first an annual gross income of $6 billion (in 1997 - Deseret News Archive) and second, the colossal expenditures necessary to operate a worldwide church, remembering the hundreds of land acquisitions and building projects they sign and complete throughout the world each year (temples and chapels, renovations, remodels, etc.) and multiple charitable projects such as the Perpetual Education Fund and world-wide disaster relief response. Given this knowledge, $190,000 does not even come close to signifying “a substantial part” based solely on a monetary inspection of lobby-related activities.

So what else is there? If we do not base the Church’s continued access to tax-exempt status purely on their non-monetary, in-kind donations to the promotion of moral principles through the adoption of legislation, then truly, what other measurement will the IRS employ to determine this matter?

“Churches… are evaluated by the “less precise ‘substantial activity test’” that is “based upon all relevant facts and circumstances”—in other words, the IRS has no openly available standard that it must follow and can therefore do whatever it wants. There may be a more codified procedure in the future, or there may not be. It may be more or less restrictive. The IRS has free reign, since all 501(c)(3) status churches have already agreed that no substantial part of their activity will be “carrying on propaganda” (propagating information) about anything” (Servants News).


“The IRS has used other factors to determine substantiality:

Time spent by employees and volunteers;

Money spent in relation to the organization’s entire budget;

The amount of publicity the organization assigns to the activity;

Continuous or intermittent nature of the activity.”


Please note that the first qualifier speaks of employees and volunteers, not members (who acted on an individual basis after being asked once, in a letter, by their president, and once in a satellite broadcast with members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, to get involved). And if the amount of money allotted to compensate employees for their time spent on the promotion of Proposition 8 is any indication of how much time was actually spent, then I think we can safely say the LDS Church has not violated that qualification. With regard to money and Church budget, I think we’ve adequately dismissed any concern of violation there (remember $190,000 v. hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars). Publicity provided by the Church came in the form of one satellite broadcast to members of the Church in California, a website, and various YouTube videos. And only a couple of specific activities were continuous in nature (YouTube videos and website) from the time that the LDS Church joined the Protect Marriage coalition in June of 2008, until the vote on Nov. 4, 2008.

Now, if you hold up the roughly four and a half months of mild and intermittent lobbying for marriage engaged in during the year 2008 (speaking strictly of the Church here, not of its members) against its nearly 179 years of missionary work, proselytizing, disaster relief aid, and building of temples and meetinghouses, then again I would suggest that the Church has in no way violated its allowable lobbying by meeting or exceeding that highly debatable phrase “a substantial part.”

Mormon Missionaries Dnews Myanmar Cyclone Relief LDS, Mormon Church Issues Statement Regarding In-Kind Prop 8 Donations

Frankly, I find this whole debate rather comical as it is well know that the Church has a superb legal team not to mention the brilliant minds easily found among its very leadership: Dallin H. Oaks, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, former professor of law, President of Brigham Young University, and Utah Supreme Court Justice; Russell M. Nelson, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “internationally renowned surgeon and medical researcher”; Quentin L. Cook, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, former “vice chairman of Sutter Health System….President and CEO of a California healthcare system….Business lawyer and managing partner of a S.F. Bay Area law firm.” And the list could go on. (LDS Newsroom – Leader Biographies). These people are not dumb. They are business and legal savvy. And besides knowing the law, they also don’t break the law!

To wrap up this discussion, let’s not forget what was written of the LDS Church by Time Magazine in 1997:

“And as long as corporate rankings are being bandied about, the church would make any list of the most admired: for straight dealing, company spirit, contributions to charity (even the non-Mormon kind) and a fiscal probity among its powerful leaders that would satisfy any shareholder group, if there were one.” (Deseret News Archive)

Now, barring the possibility of top-level extortion, blackmail, or bribery of IRS officials (which is never an impossibility in this morally tepid climate we live in), I think it’s safe to say that the LDS Church will successfully retain its tax-exempt status.


*Note: All opinions shared in this article are just that, opinions, my opinions. Any reference to the Church is merely my understanding and any mistake or misrepresentation is mine and not representative of or reflected on the Church. For official Church policy, doctrine, or statements, please visit the LDS Newsroom,, or contact LDS Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City directly.

Monday, February 2, 2009

LDS / Mormon Church Issues Statement Regarding In-Kind Prop 8 Donations; Corrects Erroneous News Reports.

LDS, Mormon Church Issues Statement Regarding In-Kind Prop 8 Donations
From the LDS Newsroom

Church Clarifies Proposition 8 Filing, Corrects Erroneous News Reports

SALT LAKE CITY 2 February 2009 Today The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints clarified erroneous news reports following the filing of its final report on donations to the coalition.

On Friday, 30 January, the Church filed the final report of its contributions (all of which were non-monetary) to the coalition. The report, submitted in advance of the 31 January deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.

The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution.

Because media coverage about this filing ran without a comment from the Church, the following statements of fact from the Church add context to this story and should help correct the record:

Fox13 (Utah): “The documents show the amount spent by the Mormon Church is greater than what was initially stated.”
Fact: The Church, like other organizations on both sides of the ballot issue, was required to publicly file these donations by the 31 January deadline. The Church has been filing required contribution reports throughout the campaign. Those earlier donations “initially stated” were filed for specific time periods prior to this last reporting period, as required by law. Other groups are also filing their final contribution reports to meet the same deadline.

San Francisco Chronicle : “Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Friday reported nearly $190,000 in previously unlisted assistance to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.”

Sacramento Bee : “The disclosure comes amid an investigation by the state's campaign watchdog agency into whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints violated state laws by not fully disclosing its involvement during the campaign.”
Fact: This filing is in no way prompted by an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Many organizations are filing this week to meet the deadline required by law. We believe we have complied with California law.

KFMB 760 AM (San Diego) :
“Mormon Church Misstated How Much It Spent in Prop 8 Fight.”
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints previously claimed only about $2,000 was spent in support of the measure.”

365Gay : “Mormon Church admits it spent 100 times more for Prop 8 than reported”
Fact: Again, the previous disclosure of an in-kind donation was to meet an earlier deadline. In fact, previous filings detailed over $50,000 out of the total non-monetary contribution of $189,903.58.This week’s filing reported donations that fell within a different time period and required reporting by the 31 January deadline. Other groups also made their final contributions reports this week.

Understanding the extent of donations from other organizations may help the media and the public better understand the context in which the Church’s donations were made.

Pearl’s take:

This is just more evidence of the dubious partiality and bias that plagues the mainstream media today.  Apparently the MSM is in the business of vilification and false accusation rather than accuracy in reporting.