counter statistics

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber Claim Credit for Yes on One

LaBarbara and Barber also are not happy with this Yes on One ad:

Here's LaBarbara's and Barber's bleatings:

Dear Readers,

I agree with my good friend Matt Barber, who is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth in addition to his important work at Liberty Counsel. It is not ethical nor good strategy for the “pro-family” movement to promote one evil and public-policy disaster (changeable and sinful behavior as a government-backed “civil right”) to fight another (homosexual “marriage”). Yet that is precisely what the Yes on 1 campaign’s pro-domestic partnership ad called “It’s Possible” did. [Click HERE for AFTAH's election story.] Here again is the text of that misguided Yes on 1 ad used in Maine:

‘Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.’

We who claim to follow God are lacking in integrity if we promote the normalization of homosexuality as part of some (perhaps well-intentioned) utilitarian plan to ostensibly “save” traditional marriage. Indeed, the irony of the ad text above is that progressive concessions on “domestic partnership” and “civil unions” legislation will, in fact, dismantle traditional marriage. Yes on 1 PR consultant Frank Schubert’s compromising spin will pave the way for disaster in the pro-family movement, as it undermines our greatest strength: our commitment to the truth. It’s time to reject Political Correctness and get back to basics in the pro-family movement. — Peter LaBarbera,; e-mail:

P.S. Young people won’t buy this political spin anyway: looking for hypocrisy, they will merely say that if “gay domestic partners” truly are worthy of state recognition in the name of civil rights, then why NOT allow them to marry (and why NOT teach children “gay”-affirming lessons in school)? The debate will only turn around when we succeed in re-explaining to Americans — both young and old — why homosexual behavior is wrong and is NOT anything like a “civil right,” and about how newfangled homosexual “rights” negate our precious First Amendment freedoms.

Read Matt’s statement below and then his additional remarks that follow it:



Counterfeit Marriage Rejected in Maine

Lynchburg, VA – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% – 47%:

“There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ‘same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted –– hopefully for good this time –– in favor of protecting legitimate marriage. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1’ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow ‘gay’ duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children –– for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker –– who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room –– homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda –– counterfeit marriage might have prevailed.”


Added comments by Barber for Americans For Truth:

“Here’s is a mere sampling of what God – the sovereign creator of the universe – has to say about deviant homosexual conduct which He calls ‘abominable’:

‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.’ Leviticus 18:22

‘Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.’ - Romans 1:26-27

“By contrast, here’s what the organized “Yes on 1” campaign had to say about the same topic in an ad they ran up to yesterdays vote:

‘Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.’‘

“It’s simply impossible to reconcile the two. If the Pro-Family movement wishes to survive, we must stop listening to political focus groups and PR , and start listening to the inerrant word of God.”

They should be happy they narrowly won this referendum. Over time, the margin of victory for these referendums on marriage equality are moving.

Rep. Tim Walz Raises Money Off Notariety of Opponent Allen Quist

From the Walz campaign:

Dear Friend,

While we are working hard this week, day and night, to get a health care bill that improves the lives of Minnesotans – just as we promised last November – my opponent, Allen Quist, is in Washington working the right-wing into a frenzy.

Quist and Michele Bachmann are two peas in a pod – they have been teammates for more than ten years.

He launched his campaign this week by asking people to join him and Rep. Michele Bachmann at a rally in Washington, DC. Their first goal: preventing Congress from reforming America’s broken health care system.

Allen Quist, a former GOP endorsed candidate for Governor in Minnesota, first began working with Rep. Bachmann in 1998 – two years before she ran for office in Minnesota. It’s clear from their extreme right-wing ideology that they are kindred political spirits. Indeed, he got her elected to the State Senate, the first political office she held.

Now, my opponent is actively receiving the support of the extreme right-wing money machine. He’s building an attack fund and it will not be long before he fills our airwaves with negative ads.

We’ve seen this before!

Quist is committed to the notion that America’s best days are behind us, that the only way to move forward is by turning back the clock. Today, he led a delegation from Minnesota to Rep. Bachmann’s Tea Party Protest where they are pushing solutions that are nothing more than failed policy from the past.

I need your help today.

You know that First District voters support effective leadership, not extreme right-wing offensive agendas, but we cannot let the big money of the extreme right-wing shout down common sense.

Please contribute $25, $50, $100 or more today to ensure we show voters they have a clear choice!

Because of his fierce allegiance – and arguable founding of the extreme right-wing in Minnesota, Quist has quickly earned the backing of Michele Bachmann.

As Allen Quist stands with Rep. Bachmann today in an effort to prevent health care reform for millions of hard working families… I need you to stand with me.

I need your help – today – to ensure voters know they have a choice. A very clear choice.


Congressman Tim Walz

Walz ought to look up the ads that Arne Carlson used against Allen Quist in 1994. Quist used an ad that showed two men dancing - and the song was "Clinton and Carlson..... go together on all of the issues." Arne Carlson's reaction to the ad: "I'm a better dancer than that."

Marriage Equality Rally in DC Calls Out Maggie Gallagher and National Organization for Marriage's Lies

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Allen Quist to Run for CD 1 Seat

For those Lloydletta readers who don't know who Allen Quist is, watch this report on a Pittsburgh, PA station.

Update: Quist is running in Minnesota's CD 1 - against Tim Walz.

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Excellent Youtube Channel

There are a number of videos here, that address Evolution and Creationism.

Monday, November 02, 2009

North Carolina's Michele Bachmann

That's Virginia Foxx. She gives Bachmann a good run for her money.

Virginia Foxx

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Cosmic Latte

It's the average color of the Universe.

Christian Science Monitor Writeup of the Maine and Washington State Referendums on Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership Laws

Read it here. As some of you may have noticed, I haven't been blogging here much lately. If you want to read more coverage of the Maine and Washington Referendums, surf on over to Pam's House Blend, which has been offering day to day coverage of these.

Minnesotans Against Michele Bachmann Facebook Group

Check it out and join here.

Instant Runnoff Voting

The city of Minneapolis is doing its first election by Instant Runoff Voting. MPR has a story that describes what a pain this will be in terms of counting the votes.

There's a vote on the issue in St Paul. This arcane issue has brought out lots of heated discussion on the St Paul Issues list. He also penned some commentary on the MPR website on this.

Advocates claim IRV would save money by eliminating primary elections. This is not true. In St. Paul, the School Board will still hold a costly primary election, though the turnout for that primary will be hurt by the absence of mayoral and council races.

IRV advocates claim the system is "democracy of the future," "as simple as one, two, three." In the last two years, seven cities or counties in the United States have used it, and three of them have either repealed IRV or have IRV up for repeal this year. Cities are suffering buyer's remorse:

Tacoma, Wash. Pierce County spent $1.6 million on a voter education campaign for IRV in 2008, yet 66 percent of 90,000 voters polled said it was confusing, frustrating and a waste of time. It is on the ballot this year for repeal.

Cary, N.C. After the IRV election in 2007, 30 percent of voters polled found it confusing and 22 percent said they "did not understand IRV at all." Cary has stopped using IRV.

Aspen, Colo. The results of an IRV election revealed that one losing candidate for City Council would have won the election if 75 of his supporters had voted for him as their second instead of as their first choice. The complicated IRV counting system cost him the election. The repeal of IRV is on the ballot this year.

Advocates claim that IRV will increase turnout. This is not true. In San Francisco's first mayor's race with IRV, voter turnout was 40 percent less than in its last traditional election.

This year the IRV-format election in Minneapolis may hit record low turnouts. With 11 candidates running, there has been almost no media coverage of the mayor's race, and the incumbent has agreed to debate only one of his opponents.

In St. Paul, meanwhile, Eva Ng came in second in the primary and has moved on to the general election. Her primary showing enhanced her credibility and has given her access to media coverage as the alternative candidate for mayor.

Advocates claim that IRV makes sure that the winner "always has a majority vote." This is not true.

In Burlington, Vt., the mayor was re-elected with only a majority of those ballots still being counted in the final round. Seventeen percent of ballots cast for candidates in the first round were eliminated during the IRV counting.

In San Francisco, in 10 of 11 elections for which IRV has been used, the winner received less than the 50 percent plus one that would constitute a majority.

Advocates claim that IRV increases minority participation and thereby helps minority candidates. This is untrue. Using IRV, Takoma Park, Md., with close to 40 percent minority population, elected an all-white City Council.

There is no evidence that IRV helps minority candidates. In the highest-minority and lowest-income precincts of San Francisco, 20 percent of the voters do not fill in a second choice on their ballot.

Free, fair elections are the hallmark of any democracy, and every voter deserves to be treated equally. Voters need to know that their votes count, and that voting for the candidates they want can only help them, not hurt them. Instant runoff voting is far too likely to confuse, frustrate and inhibit voters.

Comment: I hadn't followed this too closely when I had an opportunity to vote on this in 2006, but at this point, I think IRV is a bad idea, and St Paul voters would be well-served to send it back to the drawing board. I like having primaries weed out the weaker candidates, and then have debates between the stronger candidates during debates before the general election.

I anticipate historically low turnout in this Minneapolis election, and that's unfortunate. It is extremely unfortunate that no vigorous challenger to Mayor RT Rybak was found.