Ken - but all those ads say Ose is a Conservative!?

His record is screaming otherwise - what's wrong with this picture???

Three cheers' for religious freedom!!!

Conservatives in Sacramento County have banded together to form a slate of candidates for the Sacramento County Republican Party Central Committee.

Their motto, quite simply, is Support The Platform.

These grass roots activists have recognized the Liberal agenda to supplant conservatism in the Republican Party with a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, weak on immigration, and weak on the conservative values that make the Republican Party great.

If you are interested in the Support The Platform concept, visit www.supporttheplatform.org

Thanks and God Bless (can I say that Mr. Ose?)

Jeff

you know this refers to a 2002 vote, right?

Yes, it was a vote in 2002. But that doesn't make it any less potent as a political weapon. Some folks on this blog will use ANYTHING to paint Ose as a liberal and McClintock as a conservative's conservative.

This is very interesting. In 2002 the current House Republican Leader John Boehner, conservative Jim Sensenbrenner, and forty-four other Republicans voted against advancing this dangerous bill too! I wonder why?

But I'll bet the Reverend Jeremiah Wright would love it.

I can see it now. Protected by their tax-exempt status to be free to participate in political campaigns "churches" would simply become extended arms of some political party, like a 527 or PAC or whatever--another place where money can flow into campaigns. Of course the extent of this role will be carefully managed to comply with the requirement that politics not be a "substantial" part of the church's raison d'etre but I'm sure they'll find a way to maximize the politics at the expense of the gospel. The Word will be used to teach the congregation why Republican A is so much more godly than Republican B or any Democrat. People would start picking a church for its politics driving more division into the country. And the important, logical and constitutional separation of church from state would be significantly eroded.

Don't you think there's enough divisiveness already in this country? Why do we need to formally extend it into our churches? Where will you stop in the effort to try to get a political advantage? Because that's all this is--a wolf dressed up in sheep's clothing.

Bob - considering that you are a Charlie Brown guy...

The seperation of Church and Mind is a pillar of the Democrat party. Churches should have the right to preach the gospel without the threat of tyranny from the IRS.

Heck - we have black pastors using their pulpits to promote Obama or Clinton every day, why hasn't the IRS descended on them like gnats?

Since Ose infested congress between 1999 and 2004 - the votes referenced will be from then.

Bob - it is a common strategy from the left to attach divisiveness and faith/religion in the same setence. But, only when it refers to conservative religion...

Bob, you need to call your party bosses and tell them to have those churches whose pastors are ranting on behalf of obama or clinton shut up. Do that and I will be impressed!

What Doug Ose did is indefensible - Churches have a right to teach the gospel (start with Romans chapter 1) without being threatened by government. Doug Ose apparently disagrees with that premise.

How do you respond to the fact that both Boehner and Sensenbrenner and 44 other Republicans voted against this bill, too? Are they Democrats? No? Then why?

The more pertinent question is why did Ose vote against. When I was young and my mother caught me doing something I should not be doing, sometimes I would use the excuse that my brother did it to. My mother would respond, "Well if your brother jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you follow him?" My mother blew my lame excuse out of the water. So again, the real question is why did Ose vote against this. And another question, with the 4th CD being so heavily churched, how is Ose going to lie out of this?

Hey Bob, please help me. Please tell me exactly the place in the Constitution that spells out "separation of church from state". And please don't reference Ose's copy of the Constitution that leaves things out like the 2nd Amendment.

"Bob" ---

Using your logic, if Charlie Brown shot up a big fat needle full of number 4 smack, would that make it ok? Should we do it, too?

Boehner and Sensenbrenner were wrong, because as Ken wrote, the IRS aided and abetted by the ACLU is threatening churches left and right.

If fact, there are 2 ACLU lawyers that attend my church infrequently just to "check up" on what's being taught from the pulpit.

Ask Ken, he goes to a different church, just as large... I'll bet they have some of Charlie's fellow ACLU members in attendance there.

This vote shows that Ose values the ACLU and like organizations over the Church... Nice.

When the voters see that Ose and Colonel Klink value the ACLU over the Church, they will get returned to sender.

No, Ken, the more pertinent question is why do you continue to post things that you either know to be false or haven’t researched?

You post, “Ose, along with Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, and the rest of the usual suspects…” voted against the bill you cite.

John Boehner, whom you have previously called a hero for his stand against earmarks, is one of the, “usual suspects?” Conservative icon James Sensenbrenner is one of the, “usual suspects?”

And in perhaps the height of irony, after spending the past six months full of blood lust for John Doolittle, you elevate him as a conservative standard-bearer.

So which one is the conservative, Ken, Doolittle or Boehner? Because clearly neither one of them meets the, “if you don’t agree with me all the time, on every issue, then you must be a Mao luvin’, Stalin huggin’ pinky” test of yours.

I just asked: What's in that bill that bothered staunch conservatives like Boehner and Sensenbrenner? You reply by saying they are "wrong". So, apparently, were 44 other Republicans.

I think the more obvious answer is: Something was wrong with that bill. Look at the timing. 2002...the height of Republican power. Yet it didn't pass. Why? Don't reply with a bunch of ACLU nonsense. Just tell me what you think people didn't like about it. Maybe they were bothered by some of the issues I cited in my earlier post. Taken a step further, perhaps they were worried that this bill would actually damage churches and restrict the freedom of religion because it overreaches and would create a backlash.