Category Archives: politics

We Hold These Truths” Americans Have Wandered Out of History, Declaration Part II

By Rev. Nate Atwood

(Read part 1)

Last week, I posted the first part of a sermon by Rev. Atwood. He shared the importance of relearning our whole national history. Those aspects that modern education censors out. As he pointed out, scripture was an important part of the rise of political freedom, which resulted from the rule of law. That is God’s law applied through human law. The founding generation emphasized the great value of knowing facts of history because those facts taught them about the causes of oppression, corruption, and failure as well as the means to a good and prosperous society. Therefore, our ancestors created states and bound them together in federation based on their belief in God and on their knowledge of covenantal and world history. To forget what they and their ancestors learned and achieved the hard way will enable tyrants present and future to repeat the same evils that robbed people of God’s gift of life and liberty.

This second part of Rev. Atwood’s sermon focuses on the Declaration of Independence and the role Scripture had to play in its writing.

If we Americans have wandered out of history, let’s wander back into it.

Speaking as a Christian, a teacher of the Bible, and an American citizen, I’d like to make these basic observations with regard to the Declaration of Independence. This isn’t, first of all, a political document. First of all, and primarily, the Declaration of Independence is a religious document. Let me ask you this series of questions, . . . why did the signers of the Declaration think they could declare independence? Why did the signers of the Declaration think that it was morally permissible to rebel against England? Why did the signers
of the Declaration think they, as an upstart, rag-tag, largely impoverished group of people, could defeat the greatest military power on the face of the earth? After all, wasn’t their setting a bit like the Taliban thinking they could defeat the United States? What motivated these men? Even more to the point, . . . what was their authority for making these claims and choosing this course of action? Where did they think human rights came from? How did they understand the role of government in human affairs?

The answer, of course, is contained in the Declaration itself. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . . .” As you read the Declaration of Independence, it is very clear that the moral authority for the drive for independence was found in
God Himself. Even more to the point, this moral authority was found in the Bible itself.

John Adams, in a letter written late in his life to Thomas Jefferson, remarked that the Founding Fathers found their agreement in the “basic principles of Christianity.” This is a remarkable statement, and scrutiny of the Declaration itself suggests just this. Let’s take a moment and step inside the Declaration and “connect the dots” between the various phrases and thoughts found therein and the teaching of the Bible. In fact, let’s begin with the idea of “rights.”
Where did the concept of “rights” come from? Well, it is taught in the Bible. For example, Psalm 82:1–4 refers to the concept of “rights.”

God presides in the great assembly; He gives judgment among the “gods”: “How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? Selah. Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

What we must grasp is that the Founding Fathers lived in an era profoundly shaped by the Bible. As inheritors of the Reformation, they lived in a time when it was simply taken for granted that society was to be structured around the teaching of the Bible.

Additional thoughts and phrases in the Declaration of Independence are clearly Biblical. For example, there is a clear definition of the role of government contained in the Declaration. . . . “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . . .” Did you know that this is precisely what the Bible teaches as the role of government? Psalm 82 is written to an assembly of governmental leaders (these are the “gods” referred to in the psalm). Romans 13 similarly sees that the government’s use of force is based upon a commitment to protect the innocent. The Founding Fathers justified their rebellion against the British crown because it was a government that no longer upheld the rights of the citizens. Their logic was that the British were in rebellion against God by this failure, and thus were no longer a legitimate authority. Four times the Declaration of Independence directly refers to God. Each of these references is
completely consistent with what the Bible teaches to be true about God and is, in fact, the same language the Bible used to describe God. The first reference is to “Nature’s God.” The concept therein is that the idea of justice and law can clearly be deduced from the natural order created by God. This is precisely what the Bible teaches in Romans 1. The second reference is to God as “Creator.” The Bible teaches this in Genesis 1. (I realize it may seem obvious to us that God is Creator, but if you study world religions and philosophies you’ll learn that this is a distinctly Biblical thought. For example, Eastern religions and even Greek thought viewed the universe as eternally pre-existent—at least in the form of matter if not structure. The idea of a “Creator” is not so universally held as we might surmise.)

The last two references to God are found towards the end of the Declaration of Independence. He is referred to as “the Supreme Judge of the World.” Yes, again and again the Bible teaches us that God is our Judge (“There is One who seeks and judges,” John 8:50). The final reference to God is an appeal to “the protection of Divine Providence.” Here is a profoundly Biblical concept—the idea that God is active in the affairs of men, that God rules in those affairs, that God orders those affairs so as to ultimately protect His interests, and that in so doing He protects those who ally themselves with His causes. (“The name of the Lord is a strong tower, the righteous run unto it and are glad,” Proverbs 18:10, and Romans 8:28, “For we know that in all things God works for the good of those that love Him and are called according to His purposes.”)

Now let’s return to my earlier premise that the Declaration of Independence is first of all a religious document and only secondarily a political document. Do you now see why I hold this position? My point is that we must look deeper than the course of action our Founding Fathers took. We must examine the reasons for that course of action, and those reasons were clearly religious. Their appeal was simply to God as their moral authority and their protection. Their actions were political, but their motivations were religious.

In other words, before America was conceived in liberty, America was conceived in God. Now isn’t it true that a law of nature is this: “He who conceives is the father”? You might call the Declaration of Independence our national birth certificate. Every year we remind ourselves that this is the day our nation was born. And—if we have a shred of common sense—we honor our founding fathers. But according to this—our Birth Certificate—we were conceived in God and His Truths.

In other words, the real Founding Father is the Lord of Hosts. And so on the 4th of July, our national birthday, we should honor our ultimate Founding Father … our Father in heaven.

(Read part 1)

Reverend Nate Atwood has been in the ministry for sixteen years as an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church. He has been Senior Pastor at Kempsville Presbyterian Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, since Palm Sunday, 1999.

Ohio Education Plan HB 1 : To Assess Attitudes and Behaviors

Governor Strickland has proposed very expensive and controversial education reforms in the state budget, which is currently under consideration in the Ohio House (HB 1). His school funding reforms are fairly complex and repeal the concept of the state basic aid being based on a per child amount and will virtually hinder school choice to the point of extinction. He is also intending to lengthen each school year by one month.

By far, the most controversial portion of his changes to state policy (not receiving much media attention) is an expansion of state mandated testing to include the attitudes and behaviors of students (K-12), including scoring criteria of interpersonal skills as a part of earning a diploma. These changes will directly affect every student in public and chartered private schools. But every taxpaying citizen in Ohio should be very concerned. A less rigorous academic focus (which we have been experiencing for quite some time) will continue to contribute to the decline in our economy. How will it help the economy if students are enthusiastic, flexible, collaborators with substandard academic skills?

We fought this exact same battle sixteen years ago (also in the state budget) against outcome-based education. It is back and we need in the short term heavy public engagement. The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education is having general public hearings Monday through Wednesday this week. (see schedule below) Every concerned citizen should also be calling their state legislators with the message to vote no on House Bill 1 – the state budget if the Governor’s education reforms are not removed.

The Subcommittee hearing schedule is as follows:

Monday, March 16, 4 pm
Public hearing
Stivers School for the Arts
1313 East 5th Street
DAYTON, Ohio 45402

Tuesday, March 17, 1pm
Public Hearing
Ohio Statehouse, Room 313
COLUMBUS, Ohio 43215

Wednesday, March 18, 7pm
Public Hearing
Ohio Statehouse, Room 313
COLUMBUS, Ohio 43215

Public testimony can and should be brief. It is very simple to stand before the subcommittee members and tell them you oppose these types of state assessments.

Phone calls are also necessary. Please contact your state legislators and express your concerns with the state mandating these assessments. For a directory of Ohio legislators, go to www.legislature.state.oh.us.

Dayton Tea Party April 15

The Dayton Tea Party is part of a national movement to affect economic change at the local, state, and national levels.

The Tea Party protests began in early 2009 when Rick Santelli, the On Air Editor for CNBC, set out on a rant to expose the bankrupt liberal agenda of the White House Administration and Congress. Specifically, the flawed “Stimulus Bill” and pork filled budget.

During Rick’s rant, he called for a “Chicago tea Party” where advocates of the free-market system could join in a protest against out of control government spending.

A few days later, grassroots activists and average Joe Americans began organizing what would soon become the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party effort. About 30,000 Americans took to the streets in over 40 cities during the first nationwide “Tea Party” protest. That was on 27 February.

Since then, organizations like TCOT, SGP, DontGo Movement as well as Dana Loesch and Michelle Malkin have come together to sponsor a second round of “Tea Party” protests. This one is scheduled to coincide with the tax deadline, April 15.

I asked Juliana Johnson of Urquhart Media (also a sponsor) what they intended the “Tea Party” to accomplish. She said, “By having these events we want to show President Obama and the Democrats that it is NOT okay for them to take away our free-market.”

In other words, government take-over of major financial corporations, which effectively creates a socialist regime, is not acceptable. It hasn’t worked in China or Russia; why would it work in America?

As Johnson has repeated many times, “If they won’t listen to us then we’ll throw a damn tea party and if they still won’t listen to us then we will throw another damn tea party.”

A Dayton Tea Party is already scheduled for April 15. The location has yet to be determined.

The national Tea Party website is www.taxdayteaparty.com.

“We Hold These Truths” – Americans Have Wandered Out of History, Part I

“My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. You [leaders] have rejected knowledge. You have forgotten the law of your God…. Yet, let no one find fault, and let none offer reproof.” (Hos. 4:6, 4)
 

by Rev. Nate Atwood

Americans have wandered out of history . . . . We are overwhelmed by the instant moment headlined in this morning’s newspaper and flashed on this hour’s telecast. As a result, we can’t see the whole real world around us. We don’t see the actual conditions of our long-lived body national. . . . In a word, we have lost our sense of history. In our schools the story of our nation has been replaced by “social studies”—which is the story of what ails us. Neither our classroom lessons nor our sermons nor our books are any longer strong ties to our past.”

This is a penetrating observation made by the respected historian Dr. Daniel Boorstein in a 1970 Newsweek article. And if it was true in 1970, then how much more is it true today? After all, Dr. Boorstein made his comments before we had cable TV and the Internet.

History is important. In fact, the study of history is not only important, it is a deeply Biblical value. Dr. Charles Wolfe, a Christian historian and man who worked closely with Dr. D. James Kennedy, commented that the Bible was simply a nation recording her own history and God’s work in that history. Each succeeding generation was taught the story of Israel and what God did to birth and preserve their nation. In other words, the Bible sanctions the study of history in the
deepest possible terms.

It is reported that Adolph Hitler once said that he who controls the writing of a nation’s history controls the nation. Thus, Hitler revised German history and deliberately changed the original principles of Germany to a set of principles that permitted him to embark on a course of world domination. Controlling German education for roughly ten years, he raised a new generation of “Hitler Youth” who were propagandized by Hitler’s historical revisionism. It wasn’t Lutheran
Germany that practiced genocide and pursued satanic policies. It was a new Germany built on Hitler’s historical revisionism and theology of the Third Reich. Lenin and Stalin did the same for Russia.

Most adults are like me. We’re bad history students. We really don’t know the story of America and today’s students don’t know it either. Their greatest weakness is in their knowledge of the periods that may be most important, the Colonial and Federal periods, when the nation first achieved its unique identity.

Americans have wandered out of history. We know far more about the Washington Red-skins than we do General Washington; we know more about Elizabeth Smart than we do John and Abigail Adams. We live in the present and oftentimes we live in the trivial.

Let’s do something Biblical. Let’s remember our history. And let’s remember the part God had to play in it. As the Jews were careful to tell the story of their nation and God’s acts in that story, let’s not only tell the children the story of the Bible, let’s tell our children the story of America. And let’s do it not for selfish purposes of American pride or because we want to protect our standard of living. Let’s do it because we love truth. Let’s do it because the original vision of America was to build a country on the enduring values of Scripture so that she would be a testimony to the world that Scripture works. Let’s do it because there is a profound connection between human freedom and human dignity—both of which matter to God. Let’s do it to preserve this nation for our children and grandchildren. And let’s do it because a free nation provides the best environment in which to spread our faith in Christ both among our fellow citizens and throughout the world.

Let’s talk about the Declaration of Independence and the role Scripture had to play in its writing. Indeed, if we Americans have wandered out of history, let’s wander back into it.

(Part II, on the scriptural basis of the Declaration next week)

Reverend Nate Atwood has been in the ministry for sixteen years as an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church. He has been Senior Pastor at Kempsville Presbyterian Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, since Palm Sunday, 1999.

Democrats attacks school choice – thousands of children are at risk

Free choice is for the privileged and liberals
 

For years Congressional Democrats told us they were “for the children”. Their policies were “for the children”. Their tax increases were “for the children”. Recently they were given a chance in Congress to prove their pro-child philosophy. The price tag was a mere 15 million dollars, a fraction of the one-trillion dollar stimulus they just passed. But House Democrats decided they could not find $15 million to save the D.C. Voucher Program. Instead they cut the funding and are throwing 1,900 children out of the school of their choice. Kids, whose parents on average make $23,000 per year. Kids who did nothing wrong other than have the courage to make a change for the sake of their future.

At the same time in the state of Ohio, Governor Ted Strickland and the Democrat-led House are on a crusade to wipe charter schools off the map. They want to force thousands of Ohio students back into failing schools in troubled school districts.

This is the purge mentality of the Democrat Party. They despise school choice. They owe the education establishment and the unions. The payback comes in destroying the lives of kids who have done nothing wrong.

At the same time, the leader of the Democrats, President Barack Obama, has placed his daughters in the school of his choice: Sidwell Friends, the most exclusive and expensive school in D.C.

There is something you can do about this injustice. First take a look at the video from the kids in D.C. Then join their plea and call the White House switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Politely ask the President to restore the D.C. Voucher Program.

Next, for those residents of Ohio, contact Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. Let him know you support charter schools in Ohio. Tell him you want more choice in education, not less. They may give you a bunch of rhetoric about “for profit” management companies that run charter schools. That’s a smokescreen. They want all choice eliminated. They are picking on the management companies today. The rest will follow.

Source: American Policy Roundtable eNewsletter

An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress

Below is a letter sent to Xenia Citizen Journal by a local citizen and patriot. This patriot encourages anyone reading it to copy it, revise it as desired, and to email it to your representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives.

* * * * * *
 

Congressman,

Please co-sponsor and/or support H.R.1207, an effort to audit the Federal Reserve. Recently, it has come to light that there is little to no accountability to the people on the part of the Federal Reserve. While the citizens of this country are required by law to give an accounting of every penny they come in contact with, the Federal Reserve has never been held to the same standard. During this time of extreme economic crisis, the people deserve an accounting of where our money is going. Currently there are 11 co-sponsors for this legislation, and it is enjoying bi-partisan support. Your efforts in supporting this important legislation would go a long way in proving to your constituents that you not only hold the Federal Reserve to the same standard as you do your constituents, but it would also show that you believe in transparency. Anything less than support for this resolution suggests that you are in favor of secrecy and a lack of accountability to the people who pay the bills. We pay the tab; we have a right to know where our money is going. Unlike recent bills that were voted in favor of, that had hundreds of pages and just a few hours to read, this bill can be read in under 5 minutes. I encourage you to take the time to read it, and then move to support it. Thank you in advance for your attention on this important legislation. I have every expectation that you will do right by your constituents and support this measure

Respectfully,

Buying Xenia at City Council

During the February 12 City Council meeting, Dale Louderback read part of a study demonstrating the value of buying from local businesses. Some major benefits relevant to “Buy Xenia” are as follows:

For every $100 in consumer spending with a local firm, $68 remains in the local economy.
 
For every $100 in consumer spending with a chain firm, $43 remains in the local economy.
 
For every square foot occupied by a local firm, local economic impact is $179.
 
For every square foot occupied by a chain firm, local economic impact is $105.
 
Over 70% prefer to patronize locally-owned businesses.
 
Over 80% prefer traditional urban business districts.
 
Local merchants generate substantially greater economic impact than chain firms.
 
Replacement of local businesses with chains will reduce the overall vigor of the local economy.
 
Changes in consumer spending habits can generate substantial local economic impact.
 
Great care must be taken to ensure that public policy decisions do not inadvertently disadvantage locally owned businesses. Indeed, it may be in the best interests of communities to institute policies that directly protect them.
 

(Source: Andersonville Study of Retail Economics)

Louderback apparently shared this important information to spur discussion concerning the City’s purchases of out-of-town businesses instead of local ones. He raised some doubt about the lack of Council support for buying from local suppliers. He got only two responses. Mayor Penewitt assured him that she has always promoted local buying. Bill Miller reminded Council that ex-councilman Gordon was also a supporter. Louderback retorted by challenging the mayor to vote against several proposed purchases.

As interesting as Louderback’s goading fellow council members is, the point is only one other council members publicly proclaimed their support of local businesses. I suspect most member do, but it is still sad that most failed to assure the public of it. After all, we are in a serious economic crisis.

Mayor Penewitt did ask the Director of Finance about what criteria was used to determine when the city purchased goods or services locally. There is no local preference policy about buying locally as it was before the 1973 tornado when Xenia was a thriving retail hub in Greene County. The only criterion determining scheduled purchases is when the amount is $7,500 or more. At that level of spending, “staff is encouraged to get competitive quotes and they encourage local purchasing of goods and services when it is in the best interest financially for the city to do so.”

According to Bazalek, “there used to a Greene County preference ordinance years ago to use businesses in Greene County if their selling price was 5% greater or less, but that was repealed a number of years ago.”

Councilman Louderback said he has done his homework and has spoken to every business in Xenia. Local businesses state they will match or beat the prices. We have been talking about this for over a year. City staff knows local businesses will match or beat the prices, so why do we keep discussing it week after week.

Maybe Council should reinstate the local preference policy. That alone might encourage more local entrepreneurs to start businesses in their hometown. What do you think?

Austria contributors in bad company

Although it was not announced until recently, back in November the FBI raided the offices of PMA, a Washington lobbying firm. Just like Dave Hobson before him, Congressman Steve Austria received thousands from PMA associates, including Paul Magliochetti, who founded the firm in 1989. According to John Bresnahan, Politico, sources close to PMA said the firm has “disintegrated” in recent months and Magliochetti has hired criminal defense counsel.

For more than two years this reporter has been requesting an investigation into Hobson’s and Austria’s connections with PMA and the Dayton Development Coalition. I have been seeking public records from the Greene County Commission that could point to Hobson and Austria steering the no-bid BRAC Initiative contract to the Coalition in 2003. According to Bresnahan, Pentagon officials are also studying whether the military is “receiving value” for work done by small defense firms like Greentree Group and Qbase, two companies paid by the Coalition to work on the BRAC Initiative, a $1.9 million contract funded by Greene County taxpayers. Greentree and Qbase employees have also contributed thousands to Hobson and Austria. Furthermore, according to www.opensecrets.org, during the BRAC Initiative period of performance (October 2003 – September 2006), the Dayton Development Coalition paid PMA more than $500,000 to lobby on “real estate” matters. I have a hard time connecting the dots between “real estate” and protecting defense related jobs at Wright-Patterson.

In any case, it’s time Dave Hobson and Steve Austria return their PMA contributions or better yet, give them to charity as other legislators have pledged to do, unless of course Hobson and Austria expect they will need that money at some point for their own criminal defense counsel.

Bipartisan Banking Deregulation Produced Current Economic Crisis

Pres. Obama and other politicians blame our current economic crisis on Congressional deregulation of the banking system. A 2008 article published in OpenSecrets.org explains what they mean, why Capitol Hill politicians did it, and who benefited.

The last time Congress seriously debated how to regulate the financial industry, the result was legislation that allowed the nation’s largest banks to get even larger and take risks that had been prohibited since the Great Depression. A look back at that debate, which was over the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, reveals that campaign contributions may have influenced the votes of politicians who, a decade later, are now grappling with the implosion of the giant banks they helped to foster.

Looking back at the vote on the 1999 act, and the campaign contributions that led up to it, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found that those members of Congress who supported lifting Depression-era restrictions on commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies received more than twice as much money from those interests than did those lawmakers who opposed the measure.

In 2008, until the U.S. government threw a taxpayer-funded lifeline this month to Wall Street banks drowning in a sea of bad debt, the potential for these financial giants to go under had been dismissed. The banks were “too big too fail.” It was the 1999 legislation, commonly referred to as Gramm-Leach-Bliley (for its sponsors’ names), that cleared the way for these companies to grow so large.

For decades before, the financial industry had been segregated by government regulations dating to 1933, when Congress passed, and President Franklin Roosevelt signed, legislation known as the Glass-Steagall Act. Sponsored by a former Treasury Secretary known as the “father of the Federal Reserve,” Virginia Democrat Carter Glass, and Alabama Democrat Henry Steagall, the law responded to concerns that over-speculation by banks during the 1920s contributed to the stock market crash of 1929 and, in turn, the Great Depression. Commercial banks were taking too many risks with their depositors’ money. Glass-Steagall set up a regulatory wall between investment banking and commercial banking, prohibiting commercial banks from underwriting insurance or securities.

Sixty-six years later, in 1999, the financial services industry succeeded in essentially shattering Glass-Steagall, after putting a number of cracks in the law over the intervening years.

The congressional vote on Gramm-Leach-Bliley in November 1999 was not close. The bill passed handily with bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and Senate, 450-64 between the two chambers. President Bill Clinton supported the legislation and readily signed it. There were some strong arguments for the bill, chiefly that American banks were too constrained to compete with German and Japanese banks. There was also criticism that the legislation was pushed through too quickly and that it didn’t modernize the marketplace’s regulatory system. Pressing most aggressively for Gramm-Leach-Bliley was Citigroup, which had merged its bank with Travelers insurance company, and needed a change in federal law to keep the giant corporation together.

There was little difference in the money collected by Republicans who supported the bill and those who opposed it; the 255 GOP supporters collected an average of $179,175, while the opponents in their ranks-and there were only five of them-collected $171,890. On the Democratic side, however, there was a wide gulf, as the graph indicates. The 195 Democrats who supported the Financial Services Modernization Act had received an average of $179,920 in the two years and 10 months leading up to its passage, while the 59 Democrats who opposed it received just $83,475.

Many of the Democrats who voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley are still in Congress, as are many of the Republicans.

The new law paved the way for financial institutions, which were already large, to get even larger, and it put businesses that the nation’s financial regulators had intentionally segregated under the same umbrella once again. Critics of Gramm-Leach-Bliley predicted that if these mega-banks were to ever fail, the impact on the U.S. and global economy would be so great that the public treasury — i.e. taxpayers — would have to rescue them.

Nine years later, Congress is debating a proposal from the Treasury Secretary to assume the bad investments that are weighing down the nation’s financial institutions, at taxpayer expense. And lobbyists representing the financial services industry are trying to once again shape fast-moving legislation to their clients’ benefit.

I wonder how much money Congressional politicians have or will receive for bailing out their profitable benefactors.

Source: OpenSecrets.org, Sept. 23, 2008.

President Obama chooses former porn lawyer for #2 spot in Justice Department

Nothing has spoken more dramatically about our new president’s radical social agenda than the bios of persons whom he has appointed to key advisory and cabinet positions. Many are Clinton-era retreads. (What happened to “change?”) Many formerly held positions on some of the nation’s most notoriously anti-family, anti-life organizations.

President Obama’s nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General – second in command to Attorney General Eric Holder – certainly is the most outrageous and potentially dangerous appointment to date.

To this critical Justice Department position President Obama has nominated an attorney whose list of private-practice clients includes the ACLU, the National Organization for Women, Playboy, Penthouse and Adam and Eve.

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on confirmation of David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General on this Thursday.

Here are a few highlights of David Ogden’s resume:

* Submitted a Supreme Court brief on behalf of the ACLU arguing that a man had been improperly convicted under the federal child pornography statue because the man’s videotapes – specifically, tapes with the names, “Little Girl Bottoms” and “Little Blondes” – which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals already had deemed “clearly designed to pander to pedophiles,” weren’t really pornography.

* Fought to remove porn filters from the Internet in public libraries.

* Argued that the law requiring producers of sexually explicit material to keep records about the identity and ages of their performers was unconstitutional.

* Co-authored a brief arguing that parental notification was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old adolescent girls seeking an abortion.

It stands to reason that you do not trust the enforcement of a nation’s pornography laws to an attorney who has built his career on defending persons who violate those laws! Yet that is exactly what President Obama has asked us to do.

To urge Senator George Voinovich and Senator Sherrod Brown to vote NO on the confirmation of David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General, click here.

Source:
Citizens For Community Values
, 2/24/09.