Census will strengthen GOP, weaken same-sex marriage movement for a decade

Monday, October 25, 2010

Earlier this fall I documented the effect the 2010 midterm elections will have on the overall movement to legalize same-sex marriage.

Our report based its conclusions on the notion that the Republican Party is poised to not only take control of the U.S. House of Representatives but also win majorities in many state legislatures across the Nation.
Real Clear Politics already projects that the number of House races in the “safe Republican”, “likely Republican” or “lean Republican” category is 223, five seats more than the GOP needs to take the gavel from Speaker Pelosi.

Most importantly, that 223 figure doesn’t take into account any of the 34 House seats considered to be toss-ups. The very idea of a toss-up means the GOP is likely to pick up at least half of them, which would bring them to somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 seats. That would equate to a 23-seat majority.

Yet this is the last House of Representatives the American people will elect before state legislatures across the country, using data from the 2010 Census Report, redistribute representation based on population shifts over the past decade. And this is what is likely to give the GOP a sizable edge going into the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

Based on the Electoral College results over the past four or five presidential elections, it is easy to divide most of the Nation up into blue states and red states. There are a handful of states that have no solidly blue or solidly red trend – which we call swing states. Going forward, these three distinctions will be necessary to keep in mind.

As you know, the amount of electoral votes a state has is determined by adding the number of representatives the state sends to Capitol Hill or – in other words, the number of representatives plus the number of senators. In this way, it is not constitutionally possible for a state to have less than three electoral votes as each state is entitled to two senators and at least one representative.

According to Election Data Services, there are six blue states that are likely to see changes in their congressional representation and thus, the number of electoral votes they may cast will also change.

With the exception of Washington, which is set to gain one seat in Congress, five other states are expected to lose seats. Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts are expected to lose one seat each while New York State is set to lose as many as two. This would amount to a net loss of 5 electoral votes for future democratic candidates for president, including Barack Obama in his re-election bid.

In of itself not that’s not too bad but what’s on the other side of that equation. Those states are losing representation in Congress due to population shifts. In short, people have moved away from the industrial cities of the Northeast. Where did they go? Surely they didn’t just disappear – and that’s the real killer for democrats.

Election Data Services is projecting that five red states are going to see a net gain of 6 votes in the Electoral College due to population shifts over the past decade. Texas, the state expected to see the largest gain, will grow from 34 to 38 electoral votes while South Carolina, Utah and Georgia are each likely to gain one.  Meanwhile, Louisiana and Missouri are each predicted to lose one.

That’s a +11 vote advantage in the Electoral College for the GOP going into the next three presidential elections. To put it another way, it would be like the GOP picking off Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont.
The Democrats are going to have to find those 11 electoral votes somewhere. Unfortunately for them, they won’t find much help from those swing states. The traditional swing states of Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida will see a net loss of 1 due to the 2010 Census Report. 

Not only is that a +11 vote advantage for the GOP in the Electoral College but those new 11 votes exist because of the existence of new red-state-congressional-districts in the House of Representatives. That translates into an edge for the GOP in keeping control of the House after it's 2010 take-over. So, don't expect to see the Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed.

And indeed we will see appointments to federal benches and the even to the Supreme Court in the next decade. For this reason, among others, the 2010 Census Report spells more trouble, beyond what I detailed in the aforementioned political report on the midterms, for those who support same-sex marriage. 
READ MORE - Census will strengthen GOP, weaken same-sex marriage movement for a decade

Today's serving of the homosexual agenda (now eat it or we'll shove it down your throat)

Sunday, October 24, 2010

This is one of the leading gay rights
organizations in America and has been
on the attack lately. When will they be
open about their real agenda?

Ask a homosexual activist what the homosexual agenda is all about and you'll receive some bumper sticker slogans or if you're lucky, perhaps some talking points carefully crafted by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). You may even get a non-answer, which denies the existence of the homosexual agenda altogether. All in all, you'll get a fluffy, feel-good answer that in of itself paints benign the homosexual agenda. 

One thing you're sure to hear is about how gays and lesbians just want to have a family, marry the person they are in love with and be with that person until death do them part. This is an example of one of those talking points, crafted in the image of what heterosexuals say about marriage, in order to portray homosexuals as no different. 

I should be looking over my shoulder from now on - I just inferred that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals, a big no-no in the LGBT community. In fact what I said was completely accurate and any rational person would agree. Homosexuals are different than heterosexuals in that they prefer in engage in sexual activities with a person of the same sex. That is a fundamental difference. 

That is not to say that homosexuals are any less human - or any less American. But to deny that fundamental difference is ridiculous. That fundamental difference in of itself does not necessarily warrant any different treatment of homosexuals, either. 

Now I know that I am often critical of the homosexual lifestyle. There are aspects of that lifestyle that are indeed worthy of criticism which I don't seek to get fully into now. Furthermore, the people that make up the homosexual community are to blame for that which ought to be criticized. Promiscuity, for example, is a controllable behavior which remains largely uncontrolled within the homosexual community. 

It is this promiscuity that is largely to blame for the higher-than-average, growing number of gay men who are HIV-positive. Many heterosexuals are also promiscuous but heterosexual promiscuity doesn't spread one of the world's most deadly deceases in the same way. A recent report from the Centers for Decease Control documented that 1-in-5 gay men were HIV positive. 

The promiscuity doesn't stop when gays and lesbians are provided with access to marriage, either. You'll often hear a talking-point rebuttal to criticism of homosexual promiscuity that suggests if gays and lesbians had the opportunity to marry each other, they would be more monogamous. A January 2010 headline printed in the New York Times reads: "Many Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret" and the article goes on to explain that secret.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many.
One thing you're certain not to hear from the homosexual activist is anything about how his (or her) agenda, if they haven't already denied the existence of it, will impact your life. They will outright deny the notion that their agenda is about forcing people to do what they don't want to do. 

They make light of it. "If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one," is one of the bumper sticker slogans they'll throw at you. In reality, though, and history has shown us, the homosexual agenda is all about a radical and forced change of society that reaches far beyond 'marriage equality'. 

After all, there will never be marriage equality without full acceptance of homosexuality. A married couple that is comprised of two people of the same-sex will always busy the back of most people's minds and words will be left unsaid merely out of courtesy and respect. 

It's like what Juan Williams said about Muslims on an airplane. He's not a racist or a bigot or a right wing conservative but, as he admitted, when he sees a Muslim dressed in Muslim clothing on an airplane, it catches his eye, it makes him nervous. 

The same thing is true of same-sex marriage. People will 'accept' them much like passengers will accept Muslim passengers on an airplane but no one knows what thoughts are brewing in their minds, behind their smile.

It is because of this cultural disapproval of homosexuality that the true homosexual agenda lies in making homosexuality as mainstream as possible and 'normal' in everyone's eyes. Those who stand against that will be forced against their will to accept it anyway and we can see this happening across the Nation. 

Take Indiana for example. A privately-owned, family-run Indiana cookie shop called "Just Cookies" refused to fill the order of a gay rights group which wanted rainbow-themed cupcakes made for a National Coming Out Day celebration.

The shop's owners, in part because their shop focuses primarily on baking cookies and in part because they do not support the homosexual agenda, faced a backlash from the LGBT community that led to picketing of the cookie shop and threats of eviction from the City Market on grounds of discrimination. The owners of the cookie shop had this to say:

"As citizens and owners of a small business, we pray that our country remains a free Democratic society and these rights are never taken away by anyone who seeks to unlawfully impose their will or agenda on others."

Take New Hampshire for another example. New Hampshire's largest newspaper, the Union Leader of Manchester, is under fire for refusing to print a same-sex marriage announcement as it goes against the beliefs of the newspaper that marriage "is and needs to remain a social and civil structure between men and women." The Union-Leader, like Just Cookies in Indianapolis, is a private company.

In so much that The Union-Leader is a private newspaper, it is also well-known to be a conservative paper. Yet in the eyes of homosexual activists, that doesn't matter and when a company, be it a privately-owned and politically conservative organization, refuses to support their agenda it amounts to discrimination and bigotry.

These two examples are just within the last month and amount to a very small part of the tip of the forced-homosexual-agenda iceberg. Do you remember Gavin Newsom, the San Fransisco Mayor and homosexual activist? He said same-sex marriage was coming to California "whether you like it or not." 

And indeed it would behooves us to remember indoctrination of homosexuality in public schools by teaching young school kids that same-sex relationships are no different from heterosexual ones. And do we really want to become a society like our neighbors in Canada or in the United Kingdom where the protection of homosexuals has infringed on the basic principles of free speech? 

Don't think it could happen in America? It already has happened. 

An upcoming comedy film starring Vince Vaughn has grabbed headlines recently over its removal of a scene that included a gay joke. The scene in question includes a line by Vaughn that goes "Electric cars are gay. I mean, not homosexual gay, but my-parents-are-chaperoning-the-dance gay."

Clearly comedy - but not for homosexuals who have been working on normalizing homosexuality but have only been successful in creating an atmosphere where people have to be careful of what they say for they may offend a homosexual. 

Vaughn, appropriately, defends the usage of the joke. 

READ MORE - Today's serving of the homosexual agenda (now eat it or we'll shove it down your throat)

ActRight offers conservatives a headquarters for competitive activism online

Friday, October 22, 2010

A new website is up and running that offers conservatives a central hub for online activism that will hopefully grow in strength to counter a liberal activism site funded primarily by George Soros.

ActRight offers a new kind of platform for online activism with an added competitive touch. Upon signing up and creating an account, which is quick and easy to do, you can donate to various conservative organizations from the National Organization for Marriage to the Susan B. Anthony List to the Heritage Foundation.

If donating to organizations is not your thing - or not enough, you can search for political candidates by name or state and donate directly to to them. Each candidate has their own page with embeddable widgets for your blog or website which come in a variety of sizes. The largest embeddable widget even includes a graphic detailing how much has been donated.

If you can't afford to donate anymore right now or this year, there's plenty of other ways the conservative activist in you can take action. You can search for and sign petitions - or if you can't find the petition you're looking for - you can create your own and then promote your new petition with easy share options for Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo and beyond. I've embedded an example petition to get you started right away.

I mentioned competition. Yes, the site automatically tracks your activism - what you've done and the actions you've taken with the causes, candidates or petitions that you support and gives you points based on how much of an impact you have made. Based on these points,  a leader board of the top activists gives credit where credit is due.

There's much more that could be said about this new site, which claims to be the online clearinghouse for conservative action. I don't want to give away all the site has to offer, it's best if you go take a look, create a profile and explore the site yourself.

That's where I'm headed right now.
READ MORE - ActRight offers conservatives a headquarters for competitive activism online

Study: Gay penguins not so gay after all

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

An article published by BBC Earth News today cites the first scientific study that looks into the homosexual tendencies of penguins and concluded that some penguins merely "flirt" with homosexuality.

The occurrence of homosexuality, the scientists conclude, is the result of a high male population or higher-than-normal levels of testosterone. What's more - the scientists claim the homosexual pairs formed between the penguins are not long lasting - something interestingly similar to homosexual pairs formed between human beings.

One of the researchers, Professor Dobson explained:

So these [homosexual] pairs can bond. But, bonded pairs can split up if one finds a more preferred partner.

That's interesting because nobody refutes that people involved in the homosexual lifestyle are among the most promiscuous people in the world. For example, gay author Gabriel Rotello wrote:

"Let me simply say that I have no moral objection to promiscuity...I enjoyed the '70's, I didn't think there was anything morally wrong with the lifestyle of the baths. I believe that for many people, promiscuity can be meaningful, liberating and fun."

If only penguins could speak.

Homosexual activists often take the position that, because homosexuality occurs in nature that homosexuality is natural part of life. They use this as a talking point in the effort to mainstream their deviant sexual lifestyle which they are working to force upon an unwilling society. They, not me, compare gay and lesbian human beings to members of the animal kingdom.

I use their own comparison to demonstrate that, as the study demonstrated, the homosexuality members of the LGBT community compare themselves to is short-lived, has nothing to do with family and most importantly, the homosexual pairs were observed later on paired with a member of the opposite sex raising eggs in the breeding colony.

The bottom line is that the 'gay' penguin pairs do not stay together and in fact, return to a heterosexual lifestyle centered upon breeding and raising the next generation of penguins.

The LGBT community was so excited to see two 'gay' penguins hatch and raise a baby penguin back in 2005. We shall see their reaction to this scientific study. My guess is that the LGBT community will throw the penguins under the bus. It's won't be pretty.

So what's the point? The point is that gay and lesbians ought to be free to live the sexual lifestyle of their preference. They ought not to be treated differently because of their preferences. But when it comes to redefining marriage for the entire society, that's another matter.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with family and child-rearing, something at the very core of marriage. A piece of advice for the homosexual community:  Stop comparing yourselves to animals. It is precisely the ability of human beings to understand the difference between right and wrong, paired with our conscience, which makes us unique from the members of the greater animal kingdom.
READ MORE - Study: Gay penguins not so gay after all

Study: Gay and lesbian parents are more likely to have gay, lesbian children

Sunday, October 17, 2010

One aspect of the homosexual agenda, or perhaps strategy would be a better word to use, is to mainstream homosexuality in our society as the debate over gay adoption and same-sex marriage continues across the Nation.

That is why over the course of the past few years we have seen reports published that, for example, claim that the children of lesbian parents do just as well, if not better than, the children of heterosexual parents. Of course, this particular study has been discredited and earlier this year we explained how the entire study was a propaganda tool of the homosexual agenda.

The study I'd like to draw attention to has been printed for the November 2010 issue of the Journal of Biosocial Science and a summary of the article can be found at the end of this article.

Most interestingly, the study confirmed that:

Percentages of children of gay and lesbian parents who adopted non-heterosexual identities ranged between 16% and 57%...

This is interesting as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force puts the percentage of homosexuals in this country at somewhere between 3% and 8%. That represents a stark difference between the numbers presented by the study.

If 8% of the country as a whole are homosexuals and upwards of 16% of homosexuals' children are themselves gay or lesbians, it goes a long way to support the idea that homosexuality is, at least in part, a learned behavior - something the American Psychological Association (APA) would not refute, although they are highly supportive of homosexuality.

Last year the APA quietly came out admitting that there was no evidence of a 'gay gene', reversing a stance they held on the issue for over a decade and were only able to confirmed that many factors are at play when it comes to the determination of one's sexual orientation.

So what does this mean? Well, if the findings of the study are accurate and we as a Nation continue to impose social experiments on the family by way of gay adoption and same-sex marriage, it will equate into a larger population of homosexuals. Is that necessarily in of itself a bad thing? No, of course not.

On the other hand, homosexual activists are adamant that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples and allowing gay couples to adopt children will not have any adverse consequences. Quite the opposite taking into consideration the findings of this study.

What it means is quite possibility that within a few generations of full-fledged gay adoption and same-sex marriage, the number of Americans engaging in homosexual activity will reach a point of affecting population growth and will, short of a medical breakthrough, lead to a dramatic spread of the HIV virus.

Dramatic conclusion you may think.

Firstly, I do not intend to say that homosexual activity will ever grow to such a level that would kill off the species. So immediately I would clarify that I do not see an extinction of the human race at stake here.

However, it is valid to mention given the fact that the Washington State Supreme Court had this to say about the role of marriage in it's 2006 ruling in Andersen v. King County:

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.

Secondly, considering recent reports that 1-out-of-5 gay men are HIV-positive, it is quite fair to say that if the population of gay men increases, so will spread the HIV virus. The Center for Disease Control had this to say about gay men and HIV:

Gay and bisexual men of all races account for the greatest number of new HIV infections in the United States.
It's understandable that same-sex couples would like to adopt children. But let's keep adoption focused on what's best for the children. After all, adoption is about giving children the parents they need not giving parents the children they want.

For same-sex couples, adoption is not about fulfilling the needs of children but about fulfilling their objective to mimic the institution of the family which ideally consists of a mother and father who are married, and the child or children they conceive.

Now, the study I have been referring to is provided below. It was put together by Walter Schumm of Kansas State University who received his B.S. in Physics from The College of William and Mary in 1972, his M.S. in Family and Child Development from Kansas State University in 1976 before earning his Ph.D in Family Studies from Purdue University in 1979. 

Yes it is connected to Dr. Paul Cameron, a researcher highly disliked by the homosexual community for his work, but according to an AOL News article, it was this very same Dr. Paul Cameron who first wrote about the negative effects of secondhand smoke so in my book he's got some credibility.

READ MORE - Study: Gay and lesbian parents are more likely to have gay, lesbian children

Case before Supreme Court may offer preview of what is to become of Proposition 8

Friday, October 15, 2010

The City Council of the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage last December. Ever since, a coalition of social conservatives and religious groups have been working to bring the issue before the voters to decide, citing a provision of the City Charter which grants citizens of the District the right to hold a referendum on anything except "laws appropriating funds." Over the past year the effort has faced setbacks in both the Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

Bishop Harry Jackson of the Hope Christian Church
and leader of StandForMarriageDC, who I had an
opportunity to meet and work with twice during the
2010 Summer for Marriage Tour in Annapolis and D.C.
First, the coalition, which goes by the name "StandForMarriageDC", and is led by Bishop Harry Jackson, sued the District after the D.C. Board of Elections refused to grant them permission to hold a referendum to define marriage.

According to the Board of Elections, such referendum would have violated the city's Human Rights Act.

In January, 2010 the D.C Superior Court agreed with the Board of Elections and upheld their decision.

Congress had refused to intervene on the matter during their 30-day congressional review period, which they have over the city's affairs. Congress even has the ability to bypass the local city government altogether to pass legislation of their own. As a result, the same-sex marriage law went into effect on March 3, 2010.

Although Chief Justice John Roberts said Bishop Jackson's argument "has some force", he opted not to issue an emergency stay which would have put same-sex marriage on hold, at least temporarily. A full version of Justice Robert's decision can be read here.

Utah Senator Bob Bennett, facing a tough primary challenge from Tea Party favorite Mike Lee, tried in March to add an amendment to the health care reform legislation that would have prohibited the city from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex partners until the voters had a chance to weigh in on the matter. The Democrats were ultimately able to kill that amendment.

The next setback came in July right as the National Organization for Marriage was kicking off its 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour. StandForMarriageDC had appealed the January ruling from the D.C. Superior Court to the D.C. Court of Appeals, where in a 5-4 ruling, the Court affirmed that a referendum on the definition of marriage would violate the city's Human Rights Act.

Since then we've seen Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in San Fransisco. We've seen part of the Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Boston. We also saw a very powerful rally in front of the U.S. Capital to wrap up the Summer for Marriage Tour.

In the video below, you can see Bishop Harry Jackson leading the people in a rally chant of  "Let the people vote, Let the people vote, Let the people vote".

There is no question that this issue is headed to the Supreme Court and most likely to be heard is the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case out of San Fransisco, which on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and set to kick-off in December. Much of the debate, however, centers on how the Supreme Court will rule in Perry.

On both sides people agree that four justices will affirm the right of same-sex marriage (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer) while four will almost certainly affirm traditional marriage (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) as something worthy of preserving and something the government has a legitimate state interest in regulating. That leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote.

The only debate lies in which way Kennedy will vote. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a historically significant Supreme Court case that ultimately struck down anti-sodomy laws in various states across the Nation.

However, in his opinion, Kennedy did not offer too much insight into how his legal mind reacts to the notion of governmental recognition of same-sex relationships. He wrote:

The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.

In this Kennedy affirms the right of homosexual and heterosexuals alike to engage in sexual activities, which he calls "the most private human conduct" as they please. But he glosses over the issue of relationship recognition which was not at issue in this case.

There is part of his opinion, however, which is particularly interesting given the discourse on the topic of homosexuality in today's society. It also brings more light into which way Kennedy may swing in the Perry case. He continued:

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.
The last clause of that sentence is what is interesting. Kennedy points out that, while the State (or a court) ought not to regulate the boundaries of a relationship, he implies that such regulation is possible or even perhaps necessary, when a person is injured or more importantly, an institution the law protects is injured.

Marriage being in many ways an extension - or expansion of the boundaries of a relationship, it could be argued that the institution of marriage is one of those institutions protected by the law that may be "injured" as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage.

At the very least, Kennedy acknowledged that circumstances may exist when it maybe necessary to define the boundaries of a relationship and that is critical as we move forward. This is particularly critical given Justice Kennedy's comments on the homosexual relationship in general:

It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

First off, Kennedy wrote here that entering into a homosexual relationship is a choice. Secondly, he acknowledged that a private relationship between two people of the same sex taking place within the confines of their own homes is enough for one to "retain their dignity as a free person".

This is important as marriage is a public contract, not private, and homosexual activists claim the denial of marriage to same-sex couples is demeaning to their dignity and makes them second-class citizens.

It appears, unless Justice Kennedy has changed his mind, that the decriminalization of homosexuality so that to enter into an intimate homosexual relationship at your heart's desire ought to be enough for one to retain one's dignity as a free person.

Still, having taken all this into account, forecasting the Supreme Court's potential ruling in Perry is not entirely possible. After all, although most proponents of same-sex marriage count Justice Elena Kagan as safely in their corner, it was she don't forget, who said there is no right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution during her confirmation hearings. She is likely to vote for same-sex marriage but that is something to keep in mind.

So quite possibly one of the best forecasters we can use to "judge the judges" on this matter surrounds a petition, Jackson v. D.C., filed by StandForMarriageDC to the Supreme Court to appeal the negative ruling they received from the DC Court of Appeals in July.

If the Court agrees to hear the case, they will be hearing a case very similar to but substantially different from the Perry case. The two cases are similar in that they surround the issue of the right of citizens to vote on the definition of marriage via ballot initiative or referendum.

They are substantially different in that the Perry case will tackle the issue of a ballot initiative approved by the voters and then struck down while the petition from StandForMarriageDC will ask the Court to affirm the right of DC's citizens to vote in the first place.

Even a narrow ruling in this case out of DC, (if the Court agrees to hear it) would shed light onto the prospects of the Perry case. It is difficult to see the Supreme Court affirming the right of DC's citizens to vote on the definition of marriage, although many contend it violates the city's Human Rights Act, and then turn around and deny the right of Californians to do essentially the same thing.

Another possibility is that the Supreme Court won't hear the case and thus won't issue a ruling and we'll be left in the dark to merely speculate how Justice Kennedy's legal mind has evolved, if at all, over the past 7 years since Lawrence v. Texas.
READ MORE - Case before Supreme Court may offer preview of what is to become of Proposition 8

Boxer campaign hires day laborers to protest Carly Fiorina

Thursday, October 14, 2010

A video has been uploaded to YouTube in late September is finally being given the media attention it deserves.

Fox News has shined some light on it. Of course you couldn't expect MSNBC or CNN to cover something that would portray their fellow liberals negatively.Here's the Fox News article.

According to that video, made by Derek Broes on September 29th prior to a Boxer - Fiorina debate, two day laborers are holding a sign critical of Republican Senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina. 


Here's the catch: the sign was made by the Boxer campaign and the two laborers, one of which claims that he can't speak English, say they were promised to be paid by the Boxer campaign for their "services". If a picture is worth a thousand words, this video is worth ten times that. 

This is borderline exploitation. Here the Boxer campaign is offering money to those who would do anything to earn a dollar and who are likely in the U.S. illegally to hold a sign they can't get anyone else to hold. Is that a sign of how few supporters Barbara Boxer has in her camp? 

This reminds me of an article I came across earlier this month about a casting call for people to attend a Barack Obama event in Washington, D.C on October 13. At least that's a step up from enlisting (and paying) day laborers to support you. 

The worst part about it is that at least one of them doesn't even understand the content written on the sign he is holding, as he claims to not speak English. It is fair to assume that the ability to say one can't speak English doesn't demonstrate one's knowledge of English beyond that. I don't know Spanish beyond counting 1-10 but I can, if I needed to, say "No hablo EspaƱol".

Here's a key of advice, Barb. Maybe if your signs were more truthful, you wouldn't have trouble finding some of the constituents you represent and want to vote for you to hold them - and you wouldn't have to pay illegal immigrant day laborers.

READ MORE - Boxer campaign hires day laborers to protest Carly Fiorina


November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition