Thankfully, alert families can resist these schemes in the entertainmeHomosexuality is on a national rampage in the entertainment industry, in the public schools from kindergarten on up, and in the realm of government where it has snuck in under the radar using a pretend concern for “civil rights.”nt field by not buying. And ditto for the schools once the kids are removed, which most of you have already done or are getting ready to do.[1] But pro-homosexual initiatives by government are harder to prevent because we can only vote the culprits out every other year. My U.S. rep used to be conservative but appears to have fallen for the wiles of the homosexual lobby. I recently wrote to him.
Dear Sir,
During the past year, mail from your office regarding the pro-homosexual Hate Crimes [HC] and The Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA] acts always threatens to make my blood pressure an issue. But your letter two weeks ago with its deluge of words rationalizing your ENDA vote actually made it an issue. And I don’t know who writes these letters for you but it might be better if you had composed this one yourself. It might have let you see what we voters experienced while reading it; namely, a snow job in the making as if volumes of important-looking words might pass for substance.
As an educated person and a practicing Roman Catholic, I assume you took classes in theology, logic, civics, etc. Thus, your justification for voting the way you did on ENDA is inexcusable:
“No employer should have the right to investigate a worker’s private life or to terminate their employment for reasons unrelated to job performance…”
A conjured-up mental image of detectives prying around in someone’s closet is just plain hokum, and was probably tacked onto the bill—if it was—because of pressure from the homosexual and weird-gender lobby in order to give it knee-jerk legs with a dumbed-down populace. But you’re kidding, right? . . . that an employer (not that he’d bother), as a matter of law and conscience, can no longer look into a worker’s private attitudes? What kind of legislative arrogance is that? As long as no immediate physical harm is done during an investigation, why can’t an employer hire an investigator to check discreetly on his employee, his neighbor, his wife or even his congressman? Is only the government allowed to investigate anymore? Surely your teachers warned against the intrusive, constitution-destroying threat of ENDA-style thinking. Your political motto is, “I work for you.” Not when you vote for bills like this.
A second point: For decades now, assorted mind-molders have indoctrinated the public with the hoax that how a candidate thinks or behaves in his private life has no bearing on his ethics or behavior in office, and you appear to have bought into that fiction. The reality is that while standing at the doorway of a government office it’s impossible to leave behind at the doorstep the fundamental worldview that makes a person everything he is. I say this to make the point that an employee can’t park his worldview at his company’s front door either. Thus, if a profit-seeking employer begins to sense that an employee, no matter how skilled, hard-working or productive, is bringing potentially troubling ideas into the workplace that could be detrimental to any phase of the business, then in the U.S. of old it was rightly assumed that giving notice and paying owed wages was contractually reasonable and a common sense right. Yet, now you would attack businessmen using this new principle: I hire a guy and he suddenly becomes my boss. You would, via the tyranny of ENDA, take the right of private employer choice away.
Third, in the U.S. where I grew up, an employer had the right to hire whoever was willing to work. But being the sole risk taker and the main reason a job even exists in the first place, the employer also has the right not to hire any applicant whether because of questionable qualifications or merely on the employer’s “hunch” since he’s the ultimate person concerned. It’s the owner’s bat, ball, and glove, and he gets to pick who will be on his team. At least in a free country. And he also has the right to let the hired person go for whatever reasons. That’s the way it used to be. But in an age of political correctness gone mad, that right would be gone thanks to the strange thinking in your ENDA vote and “justification.”
By the way, what is your worldview? Just curious. Is it biblically or secularly based? It’s either one or the other since there’s no neutrality, although it’s true that yours could conceivably be a mix of “real-life” secular pragmatism with an occasional bow made to Sunday memories “as needed.” Speaking of that, you hint of “protective” clauses or religious exceptions in the bill pertaining to traditional marriage or (possibly?) the rights of pastors or congregants to wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves which they should be allowed to do. To this I would ask; have you ever heard the one about the camel’s nose and the tent? You must not have kept that in mind while voting for the “high-minded” (read: “politically correct”) twin lunacies of HC and ENDA.
Even though I’m a registered Republican, I can’t and won’t support you because of your past votes regarding “hate crimes.” However, the spectacular mistake exhibited with your ENDA vote and its barely-concealed homosexual-advancing purposes now tempts me to do all I can to un-support you. Give me an honest, vote-buying crook any day over a haughty representative who goes inside my head and tells me how I’m supposed to think. If you’d please take a moment to notice, U.S. Christianity itself is really what’s at stake in all this. When God, Christ, the churches and the Bible are finally just a memory—which is the plan with all these ACLU-type edicts you seem so enthused about—the next step towards the guillotine is that “all standards except relativism” will be gone. When that happens, perversion will be the guilt-free norm and us bigots will be in the closet— if we’re lucky enough not be in jail or dead. Ironically, even your own immediate family could one day feel the lash that comes with this level of inside-the-Beltway God-hatred.
Signed: A concerned, no…..an angry constituent.
Footnote: [1] Bob Unruh, "Homosexodus! Students flee forced ‘gay’ agenda: California parents start reacting to new ‘education’ requirements," WorldNetDaily (December 4, 2007).
American Vision’s (AV’s) mission has been to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation since 1978. We realize that this task requires a strategy to “Make disciples (not just converts) of all nations and teach them to obey and apply the Bible to all of life” (Matt. 28:18-20). Read More About Us »
Dear Congress Person
Thankfully, alert families can resist these schemes in the entertainmeHomosexuality is on a national rampage in the entertainment industry, in the public schools from kindergarten on up, and in the realm of government where it has snuck in under the radar using a pretend concern for “civil rights.”nt field by not buying. And ditto for the schools once the kids are removed, which most of you have already done or are getting ready to do.[1] But pro-homosexual initiatives by government are harder to prevent because we can only vote the culprits out every other year. My U.S. rep used to be conservative but appears to have fallen for the wiles of the homosexual lobby. I recently wrote to him.
Dear Sir,
During the past year, mail from your office regarding the pro-homosexual Hate Crimes [HC] and The Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA] acts always threatens to make my blood pressure an issue. But your letter two weeks ago with its deluge of words rationalizing your ENDA vote actually made it an issue. And I don’t know who writes these letters for you but it might be better if you had composed this one yourself. It might have let you see what we voters experienced while reading it; namely, a snow job in the making as if volumes of important-looking words might pass for substance.
As an educated person and a practicing Roman Catholic, I assume you took classes in theology, logic, civics, etc. Thus, your justification for voting the way you did on ENDA is inexcusable:
“No employer should have the right to investigate a worker’s private life or to terminate their employment for reasons unrelated to job performance…”
A conjured-up mental image of detectives prying around in someone’s closet is just plain hokum, and was probably tacked onto the bill—if it was—because of pressure from the homosexual and weird-gender lobby in order to give it knee-jerk legs with a dumbed-down populace. But you’re kidding, right? . . . that an employer (not that he’d bother), as a matter of law and conscience, can no longer look into a worker’s private attitudes? What kind of legislative arrogance is that? As long as no immediate physical harm is done during an investigation, why can’t an employer hire an investigator to check discreetly on his employee, his neighbor, his wife or even his congressman? Is only the government allowed to investigate anymore? Surely your teachers warned against the intrusive, constitution-destroying threat of ENDA-style thinking. Your political motto is, “I work for you.” Not when you vote for bills like this.
A second point: For decades now, assorted mind-molders have indoctrinated the public with the hoax that how a candidate thinks or behaves in his private life has no bearing on his ethics or behavior in office, and you appear to have bought into that fiction. The reality is that while standing at the doorway of a government office it’s impossible to leave behind at the doorstep the fundamental worldview that makes a person everything he is. I say this to make the point that an employee can’t park his worldview at his company’s front door either. Thus, if a profit-seeking employer begins to sense that an employee, no matter how skilled, hard-working or productive, is bringing potentially troubling ideas into the workplace that could be detrimental to any phase of the business, then in the U.S. of old it was rightly assumed that giving notice and paying owed wages was contractually reasonable and a common sense right. Yet, now you would attack businessmen using this new principle: I hire a guy and he suddenly becomes my boss. You would, via the tyranny of ENDA, take the right of private employer choice away.
Third, in the U.S. where I grew up, an employer had the right to hire whoever was willing to work. But being the sole risk taker and the main reason a job even exists in the first place, the employer also has the right not to hire any applicant whether because of questionable qualifications or merely on the employer’s “hunch” since he’s the ultimate person concerned. It’s the owner’s bat, ball, and glove, and he gets to pick who will be on his team. At least in a free country. And he also has the right to let the hired person go for whatever reasons. That’s the way it used to be. But in an age of political correctness gone mad, that right would be gone thanks to the strange thinking in your ENDA vote and “justification.”
By the way, what is your worldview? Just curious. Is it biblically or secularly based? It’s either one or the other since there’s no neutrality, although it’s true that yours could conceivably be a mix of “real-life” secular pragmatism with an occasional bow made to Sunday memories “as needed.” Speaking of that, you hint of “protective” clauses or religious exceptions in the bill pertaining to traditional marriage or (possibly?) the rights of pastors or congregants to wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves which they should be allowed to do. To this I would ask; have you ever heard the one about the camel’s nose and the tent? You must not have kept that in mind while voting for the “high-minded” (read: “politically correct”) twin lunacies of HC and ENDA.
Even though I’m a registered Republican, I can’t and won’t support you because of your past votes regarding “hate crimes.” However, the spectacular mistake exhibited with your ENDA vote and its barely-concealed homosexual-advancing purposes now tempts me to do all I can to un-support you. Give me an honest, vote-buying crook any day over a haughty representative who goes inside my head and tells me how I’m supposed to think.
If you’d please take a moment to notice, U.S. Christianity itself is really what’s at stake in all this. When God, Christ, the churches and the Bible are finally just a memory—which is the plan with all these ACLU-type edicts you seem so enthused about—the next step towards the guillotine is that “all standards except relativism” will be gone. When that happens, perversion will be the guilt-free norm and us bigots will be in the closet— if we’re lucky enough not be in jail or dead. Ironically, even your own immediate family could one day feel the lash that comes with this level of inside-the-Beltway God-hatred.
Signed: A concerned, no…..an angry constituent.
[1] Bob Unruh, "Homosexodus! Students flee forced ‘gay’ agenda: California parents start reacting to new ‘education’ requirements," WorldNetDaily (December 4, 2007).
Related posts: