Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Must we give up our First Amendment Liberties?

Consistent with recent themes and the provocative query in an earlier comment from a reader, I believe that Mark Hemingway in his article below provides further validation of what is truly at risk. This is not simply about Marriage in California, as important as that is, this is about the freedoms and liberties that we share in our nation. (highlights added for emphasis)

Must we give up our First Amendment liberties?


If you’re strictly mercenary about it, the recent California supreme court decision legalizing same-sex marriage has its upside. According to a recent study by the UCLA School of Law, the ensuing rash of weddings is expected to pump $683.6 million into the state economy over the next three years. With movement toward legalizing same-sex marriage and civil unions across the country, it would seem to be a great time to be a wedding photographer.

But same-sex marriage is a complex issue, and nothing better illustrates that than the plight of the humble wedding photographer. “On the surface, this sounds like a gold mine for wedding photographers. But it’s actually more like a minefield,” explained photographer Sean Cayton on the photography website Black Star Rising. “You see, wedding photographers get most of their business from word-of-mouth and referrals. Many have close relationships with specific churches, which may have very strong beliefs for or against gay marriage.”

Of course, if you’re a wedding photographer who would like to avoid the minefield that might ensue should you offend churches in your community, you could end up stepping into another minefield that might be even more problematic — you might find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

In 2006, Vanessa Willcock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against a company called Elane Photography for refusing to photograph her gay commitment ceremony. The business is owned by a husband and wife — evangelical Christians who have made a decision not to photograph ceremonies related to gay unions. In April, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found against Elane Photography and ordered it to pay $6,637 for Willcock’s legal fees in bringing the complaint. The decision has been appealed.

Of course, Elane Photography is hardly alone. There’s been an effort in the courts not just to legalize gay marriage but to force acceptance of it as a matter of conscience and religious practice:

In Ocean Grove, N.J., a lesbian couple brought a complaint to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights against a Methodist church for not allowing them to use a pavilion on the church’s beach-front property for their civil-union ceremony. The church had offered the couple use of its property and boardwalk for the ceremony, just not use of places the church considered “worship spaces.” In January, an administrative judge with the Division of Civil Rights found against the church and stripped the pavilion area of its tax-exempt status for the church’s refusal to comply with the state’s sweeping anti-discrimination law. This will reportedly cost the church some $20,000 a year. Notably, the tax exemption was tied to the church’s making its property publicly accessible, rather than to any religious criterion — but the Department of Environmental Protection managed to lift the Methodists’ exemption within one week of the complaint’s filing, even though it isn’t the agency in charge of lifting tax exemptions. The church is appealing the decision.

In California, the state supreme court is hearing a case against San Diego fertility doctors who are being sued because religious objections led them to refuse in vitro fertilization to a lesbian couple. Legal observers noted that the court — the same one that just legalized same-sex marriage — seemed hostile to the doctors’ defense during oral arguments in May.

In 2006, Catholic Charities in Boston stopped providing adoption services since state law would have compelled them to facilitate adoptions by same-sex couples. The archdiocese was prepared to provide referrals for same-sex couples looking to adopt, but that wasn’t acceptable to the state.

Same-sex marriage has turned out to be a fertile breeding ground for litigation. “The basic argument is: Once the state recognizes us as married, no private group outside of the sanctuary of the church is entitled to treat us otherwise, and various civil-rights laws banning discrimination over sexual orientation ought to take priority over religious liberty in every case,” says Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress and a contributor to the forthcoming book, “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage have long criticized it on the ground that it redefines what marriage actually is. In its recent decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the California supreme court noted that the state’s domestic-partnership law already gave gay couples “virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law.” And yet legal activists continued to push for “marriage.”

Stern makes clear that he’s not saying these legal issues are necessarily an argument against same-sex marriage. “I’m not saying that [people] ought to be opposed to gay marriage or that in every case the religious claim triumphs. But there really is a problem, in particular with regard to free speech. There are disturbing indications that in schools and elsewhere, certain views will become officially anathema.”

Stern notes that, outside the U.S., lawsuits and legislation ostensibly in favor of human rights have led to tighter restrictions on religious expression and religious institutions. In England, a Catholic school has been prohibited from firing an openly gay headmaster, and parochial schools there are forbidden by law to teach that homosexuality is a sin. In Canada, the Alberta Human Rights Commission recently took the draconian step of issuing a ruling forbidding a Christian pastor to make “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality — or even to repeat Biblical condemnations — for the rest of his life. And in 2005, the Knights of Columbus were fined by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission for refusing to rent their hall for a lesbian wedding. (These Canadian human-rights commissions are the same bodies of dubious legal authority in which National Review’s Mark Steyn and the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s are currently under attack.)

And aside from threats to freedom of religious expression, there’s also the basic matter of free speech. Again, consider the wedding photographer. The Willcock complaint was decided on the basis of treating Elane Photography strictly as a business. The New Mexico Human Rights Act forbids “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of . . . sexual orientation.”

But is a wedding photographer strictly offering a business service? Photography is considered a form of artistic expression, and wedding photographers hold the copyright for their work. In this instance, putting a seal of approval on same-sex marriage might end up requiring a legal definition of what is art and what is a service, aside from the question of whether a person can be compelled to produce either.

While the courts and voters around the country decide to what extent they’re willing to redefine marriage, they might consider how many First Amendment rights they want to redefine in the process. Talk about a minefield!

Religious Freedom?

The California Supreme Court has done it again! The Supreme Court Justices in California have ruled that freedom of religion is subordinate to the rights of those with same gender attraction. Apparently Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors, who practice in a private health care facility and refused to artificially inseminate a woman of same gender attraction, have neither a free-speech or religious exemption from state law. In essence, religious freedom is being trampled upon and subordinated to the wants and desires of an individual of same gender attraction who wants to be artificially inseminated. I can see if we are dealing with a life or death situation and the individual needs immediate medical care, the doctors have taken an oath and would be obligated to provide the best of care. But when it is simply elective and fulfilling a want or desire, for the courts to compel performance is beyond the breach.

As noted in my previous post, we find that the wants of those with same gender attractions being imposed upon society, wherein the same gender attraction community has turned to the judiciary to legitimize and legislate their lifestyle upon the majority interests in society. Our freedoms and liberties are without doubt being trampled upon, and it is not in our advocacy for freedom nor in our advocacy for Marriage. Our freedoms and liberties are being trampled upon in the name of "tolerance", "discrimination" and "choice." This is not about the heterosexual community imposing our lifestyle upon the homosexual community - On the contrary it is about the homosexual community imposing their lifestyle upon us to legitimize their elective choice and want. Surely, in our society the homosexual community can live as they wish, but when they seek to impose their lifestyles upon others, they trample upon the freedoms and liberties upon which this nation is founded.

As we choose our next POTUS, may we consider the criticality of this decision and choose wisely. In Senator Obama we have a man who reflects the attitudes and interpretation of our modern judiciary, legislating, dictating and imposing upon the freedoms and liberties that we cherish. A man who epitomizes the attitudes and philosophies of generational entitlement. In Senator McCain we have a man who believes and has fought for the freedoms and liberties that we share. A man who believes that our freedoms are endowed to preserve our society, not simply to fulfill our wants at the expense of others. Choose wisely and stand for freedom.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Noted below is my response to the comment on my previous post, when challenged why those who advocate California’s Protect Marriage Amendment, Proposition 8, would seek to deny the rights of “Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” of those with a “same gender attraction.” Sorry for the length, but it is critical to lay necessary foundations for understanding each other in the dialog.

Are the advocates of traditional Marriage, or marriage between one man and one woman, really seeking to deny liberty and happiness to those who are attracted to their same gender? What is really at risk? Are trampling the rights of others when we stand for traditional Marriage, even in our support of an Amendment to the US Constitution? In my opinion, the answers are clearly – No, Freedom and No.

Without equivocation, extremes exist in our society that advocate on both sides of the Marriage argument. It is not my intent to elicit stereotypical extremes, but to advocate a rational, reasoned and substantive argument supporting the answers above.

Foundationally, there are certain assumptive ground rules to the argument.

1) Word definitions - notwithstanding society’s redefinition of certain words, I will try to adhere to words that are clear and distinct in definition. For example:

a. “same gender attraction” is more specific and definitive than gay or lesbian and it’s connotation is clear and without confusion with “gay lifestyles” – there is a distinct perceptional difference, hence it’s use;

b. “agency” or “choice” – man’s agency or choice have been redefined in society as an entitlement without consequence or accountability that seeks to justify man’s right to choose whatever he will without consequential impact on self or others, i.e., I can do whatever I wish, it is my body, hence my choice. The argument of Pro-Choice is reflective of society’s interest to justify and rationalize the position of a “woman’s right to choose” without regard to accountability for creating life. Choice or Agency is not a “right” or “entitlement” if we deny or reject consequential accountability. In fact, we are all entitled to “agency,” it is a God-given gift, but inherent in its right reside responsibility, accountability and the consequential affects thereof. To redefine choice and agency as a right without consequence is simply a veiled attempt to pervert the God-given gift that it is;

c. “tolerance” vs. “acceptance” – tolerance in our society seems to have been redefined to further justify passivity and compromise to core values and principles, i.e., to be “politically correct” and not offend others. The situational standards of society have attempted to define tolerance and acceptance as the same – they are starkly different. As members of society we should be tolerant, i.e., respecting and understanding, of others. Even so, tolerance does not dictate nor demand that we are accepting of that which is contrary to our core principles.

2) Assumptions – notwithstanding society’s stereotypes, I hold to the following positions:

a. Individuals with same gender attraction are not by definition lascivious in their lifestyle and do not advocate promiscuity. Surely there are some, both heterosexual and homosexual, that do advocate and promote promiscuity and lasciviousness in their lifestyles, but these are the minority on both sides, and not to whom I speak. Those who fall outside of this dialog are wrong in their lifestyles and will never know happiness therein.

b. The situational standards of society have been used to justify and rationalize lifestyle and behavior. For example, a man who is kind, loving, and sensitive, even effeminate is often deemed to have same gender attractions, and is therefore classified and justified in choosing such a lifestyle – it is an “acceptable societal norm.” Unfortunately, the perversions of our society’s foundational norms have sought to classify individuals by their sexuality and hence justify and even advocate “alternate lifestyles.” This is not an argument of genetics or environment, only to state that our society is seeking to redefine and justify the rights of men and women by sexual orientation, without consequence.

c. The “traditional family” is and has been the foundation to our society and society’s through the ages. It is fundamental to God’s plan for man, to provide a nurturing environment for the development of the human soul within the bounds set forth by a loving Heavenly Father.

To the argument –

Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are enumerated in our Declaration of Independence, which is foundational to, and even the lens for, our Constitution. Even so, to put it in perspective, “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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The reference to unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator sets the framework for the argument, for our Rights, as so noted, are endowed within the bounds set forth by our Creator, our God, even our Heavenly Father. The unalienable Rights, within this framework and bounds set forth, are not without responsibility or accountability, for no man can have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unto himself as it would contravene the very society in which we live and the basis for our Declaration and Constitution. Our liberty and pursuit of happiness are set forth within our society, a society of laws, order and boundaries that preserve our freedom and liberty. Government and laws are not to trample upon our freedom and liberty, but in fact exist to preserve them. It is a fine line that seems to be getting lost in the judiciary of our day. Government and laws exist to preserve and protect, not dictate or determine our lifestyle.

Marriage has existed through the ages, and specifically our society, as a sacred and religious institution and covenant between one man and one woman (“Marriage”). The origin of Marriage began with the creation of man and was given by God for the nurturing of the human soul in a loving, divinely established family (The Family: A Proclamation to the World). The laws of our society have recognized and accepted Marriage in this form, a “status” if you will, and thus are set forth to preserve and protect the integrity of the institution as it was intended. It is neither within the purview nor authority of our Government to redefine or dictate the terms of Marriage, but to respect and preserve the sanctity thereof. Government did not create, nor establish the institution of Marriage, and thus cannot regulate it, only preserve and protect it. Therefore, the role of the Government is to defend and protect the status of Marriage as it was instituted by God. When governments seek to legislate lifestyle, or dictate who may enter into the covenant of Marriage, they overstep the bounds upon which they were founded and thus trample upon the liberties and freedoms of its citizens. It would be no different than the Government dictating that those, whose beliefs may be contrary to a given institution or church, are entitled by right and not privilege, in the preservation of liberty, to membership therein. We set foot on a slippery slope when we concede to governments the privilege of religious belief, the determination of our religious institutions, and the capacity to redefine the practices therein to the situational standards of society.

Some may say it is discriminatory, even disparaging, to deny those with same gender attraction the privilege of Marriage, hence the need for government intervention. Marriage is a privilege granted by God and a status protected by our nation, not a Right, even though some in society would say otherwise. The situational standards of society would have us believe that the sanctity of Marriage, as defined by God, discriminates against, and disparages, those of same gender attraction. On the contrary, governed by the order of eternal principles and privilege, of which Marriage is an integral part, obedience, fidelity and complicity thereto are fundamental – it is our choice to accept and obey, or reject the governing principles, again – accountability for our choices. If we choose to comply and obey we reap the blessings, if not, we receive not. The paradox in our society is that those whose attitudes and beliefs are contrary to the eternal principles of Marriage seek for the blessings and “entitlement” without paying the price of admission. The blessings of Marriage are available to all willing to comply with the principles whereby it is governed. With the privilege and sanctity of Marriage come responsibilities and obedience to the principles thereof, which responsibilities demand fidelity and complicity to its governing principles! Marriage and family have been and will continue to be critical to the foundation upon which our nation is sustained and preserved. If we question the veracity of the previous statement, look to the history of man, Rome, Greece and elsewhere where societies have failed when they have neutered Marriage and family.

If individuals with same gender attractions believe that choosing a lifestyle consistent thereto brings happiness, they are protected under the laws of the land to do so, provided however, that they do not seek to force or impose that lifestyle upon others. This equally applies to a society seeking to impose Marriage on the unwilling. Marriage is an elective covenant recognized and protected in our society and not legislated or imposed upon others, willing or unwilling. Again, the role of our Government is to protect and preserve the liberties and rights of its citizens. If individuals with same gender attractions wish to contractually cede certain rights to one another, as in any legal and binding contract, they are free to do so and the laws of the land should protect such. But to seek to define such an agreement as Marriage, reconstitutes and redefines sacred existing covenants, thus contravening and trampling upon the liberties of those who willingly entered into this sacred covenant.

Unfortunately, it has been the course of our society, and/or certain extremes therein, under the guise of tolerance, liberty, choice and lifestyle, to justify and legitimize the extreme. In effect, by twisting and redefining interpretations, and employing the liberality of the courts, there are certain elements of our society that would seek to impose and legitimize their lifestyle, behavior and opinions to the detriment of our liberty, our freedom and the foundation upon which our country was formed. As a society we are being led downward, with "flaxen cord," into a society where our freedom and liberty are being trampled upon, under the guise of “tolerance,” “choice” and “discrimination.”

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Stand For What Is Right!

The Eagle Foundation and the California Protect Marriage Amendment

The time is now, to stand for what is right, to stand with resolve and to act. We invite you to join with us! We have formed The Eagle Foundation, a Washington D.C. based 501(c)(4). The Eagle Foundation has been established to provide conservative value based leadership and facility for conservative grass roots initiatives and candidate support throughout the United States. We believe strongly in conservative principles and values, and recognize the need to counter current political trends in the US that undermine the family, moral values, conservative principles and the need for the United States to remain the pre-eminent economic super power, thus preserving the freedoms and strength and advocacy upon which our nation was founded. The Eagle Foundation is intended as a “Title of Liberty” whereunto Americans may look for advocacy of moral values, conservative principles and accountability of our political leadership. The Eagle Foundation further provides a vehicle for grass roots participation in support of its causes and candidates.

Rather than pursue a “re-creating the wheel” strategy, The Eagle Foundation has elected to pursue a strategy of identifying key conservative based initiatives, candidacies and/or Political Action Committees with which it can be aligned, thus providing leverage and increased capacity to achieve the objectives outlined above. The Eagle Foundation cannot, under Federal Election laws, contribute monies to Political Action Committees, Candidates or Initiatives. It can however, among other things, educate and train citizens to be effective advocates; cover PAC, initiative and candidate administrative costs; and develop, lead and deploy critical grass roots voter turnout initiatives, media support and critical task force support for candidates and initiatives that conservatives value.

We invite your participation in this endeavor, and seek your financial support to assist the Eagle Foundation in its mission as described herein. Given our current commitments to critical conservative causes and candidates, we invite your contributions. If you are able to assist us with a contribution in any amount, please contact by sending an email to EagleFoundation@gmail.com. We will respond with the necessary information.

Consistent with its founding principles, the Eagle Foundation has identified and committed to support and advocate the California Constitutional Marriage Amendment Initiative (Proposition 8). We have committed our resources for this critical cause , to preserve our freedoms and liberties. Please join with us as we sprint to the November election.

California Constitutional Marriage Amendment Initiative (www.protectmarriage.com)

The California Constitutional Marriage Amendment, identified as Proposition 8, has been developed as an outgrowth of a recent California Supreme Court ruling that contravened the will of the people of California when they resoundingly passed Proposition 22, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman,. By this ruling, California legally allows same sex marriage. Jointly with Massachusetts, California has set the course of destruction of the sanctity of marriage and the family in the United States. In support of family values and conservative principles, the Eagle Foundation (“Foundation”) has agreed to sponsor, support and facilitate the grass roots effort of the Protect Marriage Amendment Initiative in California. Specifically, the Foundation has agreed to jointly employ key statewide grass roots personnel for the Protect Marriage Initiative. Additionally, the Foundation will assist in coordinating, managing and training a state wide grass roots field organization for critical voter turnout initiatives, as well as the development of a 72 hour Initiative Task Force.

POTUS Candidate - Civil Presidential Forum - Thoughts
The distinct contrasts between the Presidential candidates last evening at the Civil Presidential Forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren and the Saddleback Church were self evident. Although both candidates seemed at ease given the format, their individual responses clearly illustrated who has the greater capacity to lead our nation. John McCain was clear and direct in his responses and without equivocation, in fact, he was impressive in his grasp of the issues - well done. Barack Obama was nuanced in most every response. He was unwilling to offend or speak with clarity of his positions on most issues. Yes, Obama speaks of change and unity, however he doesn't seem to understand the importance of standing for something. Trying to appeal to all positions and peoples, with flattery and nuance, speaks volumes and honestly is quite scary. Obama's position of being pro-choice and not pro-abortion epitomizes his nuanced approach to most issues. Thank you John McCain for standing with resolve, standing for what is right and standing with readiness to lead.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Obama Said What?

Tell me he was misquoted, but in today's USA Today Opinion Section Obama in defining sin is quoted as saying, sin is "being out of alignment with my values." Did he really say that? I know he talks of audacity, but really. This is beyond the pale, that he could define sin in such a manner, and qualify himself as the arbiter and judge of what is sin. It is not mine to judge, for people can think and believe what they will. Even so, it is an issue of pride beyond measure and extremely dangerous for anyone to assume such a position. Maybe he meant to say that sin is being out of alignment with Christ's values, that gets him closer, but he didn't. America cannot, should not and hopefully will not elect any individual who appoints himself as such.

Monday, August 4, 2008

What would the world be like?

The media in the United States has appointed itself as the arbiter of what is right and good, or so it seems. They have feigned independence as they have reported on the political scene, injecting with reckless abandon, their bias and opinions. They have shaped the perceptions of the US electorate, through their reporting, causing me to think that they have significantly contributed to our current slate of Presidential candidates. If considered in the aggregate, the biased reporting in most media reports, political or otherwise, reveal an interesting, and surely not mainstream, thought in our media punditry. From issues on family, marriage, politics, economy, religion, and so on, the media's bias has been evident when reading between the lines. Perhaps the power of the pen has gone to their heads, that their will and interest supersedes that of mainstream Americans. Are the majority of Americans sufficiently silent to allow this coup to survive?

A thought occurred to me the other day; what if we shipped those in the media and for good measure, the "Hollywood elitists," to their own land or country. How long would they last and what would their land or country look like after just a few short years. Beyond anarchy, economic chaos and social degradation, how many would survive, or choose to return to the bounty and freedom of America?

Just a thought?

Rhetoric, Reconciled and Resolved - Why?

As noted in the previous post, we are choosing a candidate for POTUS that is the lesser of two evils. Both men unfortunately do not seem to represent the best that our country has to offer. Neither has hand's on executive experience. In Senator Obama we have an individual who is without sufficient experience and capacity to lead our nation; an individual who has fallen prey to the influences of the media and has begun to believe the hype, even to becoming prideful and arrogant; and an individual who fails to understand the role of government, espousing liberal thought even to the point of socialism. In Senator McCain, we have an individual whose behavior is cynical and reflective of a society that embraces situational standards; an individual whose life choices have not held true to principles of integrity and fidelity with regard to family; and an individual who, although true to country, I am not sure does the right thing for the right reason, again caught up in his own pride. Even so, amid the rhetoric we should now be reconciled and resolved in our support for John McCain. Why?

Having given it lengthy thought and study, notwithstanding my personal challenges with Senator McCain's current and past behavior, I am reconciled to the fact that he will in the least advocate "center-right" positions, and that he has and will continue to align himself with advisors and colleagues of the same ilk, with greater deference to conservative positions. Senator McCain will make judicial appointments that will constructively adhere to the Constitution. Contrarily, Senator Obama, who is very liberal in thought by his own admission, has and will continue to align himself with the past advisors to William Jefferson Clinton, each of whom espouse positions that are far left, making judicial appointments that will not only interpret law, but create law. John McCain preserves the checks and balances of our democratic republic while Barack Obama neuters the checks and balances that were established at our nation's founding.

It is down to which of the two candidates truly understand the role of government, and align themselves with counselors and advisers who advocate their understanding of government's role in society. We have two distinct philosophies at play. Senator McCain holds to the position that the role of government is limited simply to providing protection, security and preserving the liberties and freedoms of all Americans. Senator Obama, on the other hand, believes that solutions rest in government's role to dictate, determine and assure the lifestyles and liberties of all Americans. There is a difference. Whereas Senator McCain appeals to the electorate with realistic core values and conservative principles with substance, Senator Obama appeals to the electorate with flattery and rhetoric by proffering hope without substance, and advocating a government that is all things to all people.

In Senator Obama we see a reflection that is frightening, even an individual caught up in self, who believes that government should dictate, as they have in California, the lifestyles of Americans, and bring economic equality and wealth transfer through taxation. Recent California decisions to forbid the sale of transfat's (interesting, while still allowing the sale of alcohol and tobacco) and deny the development of fast food restaurants in South Central LA because of society's obesity, and the state Attorney General's misrepresentation of the Proposition 8 summary to the benefit of the gay and lesbian movement, are reflective of political will that is contrary to the precious freedoms bound in our Constitution. We are at a critical juncture, even a defining moment in America - we can preserve our freedoms and elect a candidate who advocates such, or we can elect a candidate who seeks to impose a greater role for government than what our founding fathers established at the birth of our nation, and thus in the name of choice and freedom, set us on a course that will ultimately cost us that which is so precious, our freedom and liberty.

I am personally convinced that John McCain will appoint and surround himself with individuals who will continue to advocate the need and capacity for America's economic strength and vitality, even to preserving our status and the world's leading economic superpower; individuals who understand the role of government to preserve our liberty and stand as a light to the world. Barack Obama, by his professed policies, will establish tax and economic policies that will constrain and hamper our economic vitality, even to the point of facilitating our subordination to other thriving global economies. Barack Obama has clearly delineated himself as one who will impose the will of government on the people rather than accept the will of the people. John McCain will preserve our freedoms and liberties by keeping government's role in check, while Barack Obama will seek to impose greater governmental influence and participation.

This is not an election about foreign policy or Iraq/Afghanistan, it is about economics and the preservation of our freedoms and liberties; it is about preserving our economic capacities as the leading economic superpower in the world; it is about economic, tax and energy policies that will stimulate our economy, thus assuring our capacity to lead in foreign policy, even to the critical leadership role dealing with the radical jihad we face. Choose wisely, but for me, we have only one choice amid the rhetoric to which I am reconciled and resolved - John McCain.