Originally published at customerservant.com. You can comment here or there.

This has got to be the most idiotic study I’ve ever seen.
They’re trying to prove that VOIP is here to stay because they’re getting several thousand subscribers via telemarketing tactics.
I wonder how many of those people will be calling back once they figure out that the servers don’t stay up and running, and that the VOIP community suffers from the same irresponsible habbit of passing the buck a lot of other new-fangled geeks-turned-businessmen (otherwise known as .com losers) suffer from.
Right now, the thing going for the established phone companies is, despite their customer service issues, the service generally works, and if it doesn’t, you can bet they’ll be out to fix it.

Originally published at customerservant.com. You can comment here or there.

I really hate it when people go through life either not knowing enough about themselves to determine what kind of person they are, or who spend their time criticising others for exhibiting the same traits they themselves exhibit.
So, in the interest of helping my fellow man put themselves on the right side of the injunction to “know thyself”, I’ve come up with this little guide.
This will help you to determine whether or not you’re a ho, the type of person that seems to be very much a part of our daily lives, yet for some reason has defied definition for way too long.
Ordinarily, I would be discussing this with John, but since some moron decided it could be construed as sexual harassment by someone who could find it offensive, that was pretty much tabled.
Thanks Mike for ruining all the fun, although we know you aren’t responsible for the idiocy.
And now, on with the list.

  • You rent out your bed space;
  • You have an ATM machine in your bedroom;
  • The first thing you say after sex is “next!”
  • You keep a menu above your bed which lists the sexual favors you offer, with pricing;
  • You’ve hired greeters to post themselves at your bedroom door;
  • Your welcome mat is placed at your bedroom door instead of your front door;
  • Your bedroom door is a turn-style
  • During a job interview, you ask if knee pads are part of the benefits package;
  • Your ankles have to write letters to each other in order to keep up to speed on everything that’s happened since they’ve been apart;
  • You’ve posted a “Now serving” sign on your bedroom door;
  • You’ve taught your children to ask “Are you my daddy,” every time you introduce them to a man;
  • You list whip cream, condoms and edible underwear as business expenses when filing your taxes;
  • you list every place you’ve “parked” as places of employment on your resume;
  • You refer to your sexual partners as “streams of income”;
  • You’ve hired an accountant to keep track of the number of sexual partners you’ve had;
  • You’d sit at work, but you find you’re more comfortable on your knees;
  • You’ve chosen a nickname that doubles as a term for a sexual favor;
  • You refer to your sex toy collection as “job resources”;
  • You refer to the Kama Sutra as a beginners’ manual;
  • You name your children after cars you wish you could “park” in.

Did i miss something?
If you think so, leave your suggestion in the comments.

As seen at Third World County, Gribbit’s Word, Stop The ACLU, Dianne’s Stuff, and Stuck On Stupid.

Originally published at customerservant.com. You can comment here or there.

March 28 (Bloomberg) — Republicans, who have profited politically from emphasizing faith and family values, are now finding those same issues dividing
the party.

Economic conservatives and secular Republicans complain their message is being drowned out by Christian conservatives preoccupied with banning abortion
and gay marriage and limiting stem-cell research.

On the other side, “values’’ advocates say they have provided the party with crucial support, particularly in 2004, when they mobilized religious conservatives
to go to the polls to help re-elect President George W. Bush.

Such concerns are turning long-simmering Republican tensions over the role of religious conservatives into an election-year split in a party already strained
by differences on the Iraq war, immigration and government spending.

“There is a great deal of concern about this seeming attempt to couch everything in religious terms,’’ said Christine Todd Whitman, the former governor
of New Jersey. “We’re not a narrow-minded nation, and at least some of the people trying to define the Republican Party are coming off that way.’’

If anything, religious conservatives deserve a greater Republican commitment to their agenda, said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family
Research Council.

“We had reason for people all across the country to be engaged at unprecedented levels,’’ said Perkins, whose group is organizing a “values voter’’ summit
in September. “It made a difference in states that were very closely divided.’’

Book Tour

Whitman, who was Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator from 2001 to 2003, has been traveling the country promoting her book, “It’s My Party
Too,’’ and has started a political action committee to give Republicans like herself a greater voice and elevate issues such as government spending and
health care.

Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said too much focus on abortion and gay marriage
may weaken Republican support in the Northeast and other regions where economic matters and other issues count more.

“When you rely on those kind of social issues it helps you some places, but there’s a cost to that,’’ Davis said.

Some of this year’s most hotly contested congressional races will be held in states such as Pennsylvania and Connecticut, where some Republicans say a conservative
religious agenda may not play well with voters.

Losing Ground

“If you take a look at where the president’s numbers are weakest and where the party has lost the most ground, it’s in some of those areas where these
issues have been played up,’’ Davis said. Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress in 1994 because the party united behind the economic ideas
in its “Contract With America,’’ he said.

Davis’s concerns echo those of former Missouri Senator John Danforth, an Episcopal priest who wrote in the New York Times last March that his party had
allowed a “shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives.’’

Those frustrations may reflect a shift in the party’s balance of power away from economic conservatives and advocates of limited government, said John Green,
a political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio who studies the impact of religion on politics.

Shifting Numbers

“It may be that the Jack Danforths were more tolerant of the religious point of view when the libertarian view was dominant,’’ Green said.

Ten years ago, small-government Republicans outnumbered religious-values voters by as much as 20 to 25 percentage points, said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican
pollster. Now their numbers are almost equal, he said.

“The real schism of the party is not abortion or gay rights,’’ Fabrizio said. “It’s religiosity. It’s whether or not you believe God’s Law should be used
to set public policy.’’ Conflict between religious and self-described moderate Republicans will intensify ahead of the 2008 presidential election, Fabrizio
said.

The debate is already playing out in Ohio, where an amendment banning gay marriage united religious conservatives behind Bush in the 2004 presidential race.

Two Ohio pastors who campaigned for the amendment have been accused by a group of clergy of violating tax laws by promoting Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell,
one of two Republican gubernatorial candidates in the May primary election.

Political Advocacy

In a complaint filed with the Internal Revenue Service in January, the accusers said Russell Johnson of the Fairfield Christian Church in Lancaster and
Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church in Columbus violated a provision of the tax code barring political advocacy by churches and other nonprofits. The
complaint cited several alleged instances in which the churches promoted Blackwell at religious events, in voter-registration drives and in educational
materials.

Johnson called the complaint “a form of harassment, and frivolous’’ in an interview. “Christians do not have to give up their citizenship just because
they go to church,’’ he said. Parsley, who declined to be interviewed, called the charges “baseless and without merit’’ in a statement issued in January,
and said his church had always complied with federal tax laws.

The IRS, in a report issued last month, said it was stepping up enforcement of the ban on political advocacy by tax-exempt groups amid what it called a
“dramatic’ increase in the amount of money such organizations are spending on political campaigns. For 2003-2004 it was more than $10 billion, more than
double the $4 billion spent in the previous presidential election cycle, according to the IRS. Of the more than 100 groups being investigated, 47 percent
are churches, the IRS said.

`Ground Zero’

Ohio is “ground zero’’ in a battle that will help determine how successful religious conservatives will be in organizing political campaigns through churches,
said Barry Lynn, executive director of the Washington-based advocacy group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

If the Ohio attempt succeeds, “there are going to be efforts to clone it in other states,’’ he said. Similar networks are already being assembled in Texas
and Pennsylvania, he said.

Amo Houghton, a former New York Republican congressman, says Republicans concerned about the influence of evangelicals should be more aggressive about speaking
out, particularly with Bush’s approval ratings at record lows. Houghton, who retired last year, opposed legislation in Congress that would have helped
legalize partisan activity by churches.

“Political campaigns are trying to identify and enlist friendly congregations to reach out to others and establish beachheads in the religious community,’’
Houghton said. “I don’t think that’s right.’’

Originally published at customerservant.com. You can comment here or there.

Quite frankly, I’m at a loss as to why religion is even being brought into this debate, unless it’s just another way for those in favor of porous borders to try to use religion to win the right-wing and moderate vote.
Where does Hilary Clinton get off saying that the Good Samaritan and probably Jesus himself would be criminalized?
I can’t even apply company logic to that one.
The Good Samaritan, nor Jesus, crossed anyone’s borders illegally, nor did they fraudulently acquire government funds allocated for the poor of this country.
Where’s the connection?

by
James R. Edwards, Jr.
Posted Mar 28, 2006

Sen. Hillary Clinton has said House-passed immigration enforcement legislation “would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.”

Thus the New York senator made her contribution to a string of liberal Bible-babble: Democratic Chairman Howard Dean’s calling the Old Testament book of
Job his favorite New Testament book, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s assertion that many Democrats “do” politics according to the gospel of Matthew
(whatever that means), Pelosi’s charge that voting for the GOP budget was a “sin.”

Not exactly the way to round up traditional-values Christian votes, folks. A hint: It would help if you (1) actually believed the Christian Scripture is
God’s true and inerrant word, rather than manipulating it as a political prop; and (2) actually read the Bible and got to know the 66 books, the 150 Psalms,
the Ten Commandments, the four Gospels, etc.

Like Clinton’s gaffe, the U.S. Catholic hierarchy is engaging in this brand of bearing false witness. Roger Cardinal Mahony and his ilk have grossly mischaracterized
the same provision in H.R. 4437 that Clinton referenced. Mahony distorted the anti-human trafficking measure as “criminaliz[ing] even minor acts of mercy
like offering a meal or administering first aid.” That’s patently false. He then stated “the church supports” the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill.

In fact, the House measure would require someone both to know or willfully remain ignorant of someone’s immigration status, and to give assistance that
helps an illegal alien “remain in the United States.”

Beyond such lies and distortions about specific legislation, what is a biblical basis for Christians to approach immigration issues?

First, God ordains civil government. It’s his agent to protect innocent citizens under a specific jurisdiction’s authority. Jesus taught that people should
render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Proverbs 24:21 instructs us to “Fear [honor] the Lord and the king. . . .” Romans 13 says, “For there is no
[civil] authority except from God. . . .”

It follows that government may legitimately decide immigration policies. Even the Catholic bishops, who work alongside Leftists like the American Civil
Liberties Union and the National Council of La Raza for open-borders policies, claim to agree that “sovereign nations have a right to control their borders.’

Oft-misquoted passages such as Exodus 22:21 (”Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.”) don’t inform or speak to how those
foreigners were admitted to the nation in the first place. Somebody has to decide who and on what conditions foreigners may enter a nation. That’s the
civil government’s job.

Second, some conduct may not be inherently evil, but is regulated to ensure order, fairness or safety. Moral implications attach to certain conduct because
it’s set in law. Circumventing that regulation is immoral.

For example, it’s not inherently evil to drive on the left side of the road. But because our law requires everyone to drive on the right, it isn’t only
illegal to drive on the left here — it’s also immoral, because it disrupts public order and disrespects law itself. That’s why breaking the law is considered
an offense against society.

Like the difference between a hike and trespassing, crossing the desert isn’t inherently wrong, but crossing an international border in the desert is an
immoral act — because it’s unlawful. The same holds for overstaying a visa, perpetrating a fraud for an immigration benefit and the like. To say otherwise
is wholesale rationalization.

What about desperate aliens just looking for a better life? Proverbs 6 teaches that the higher principle of law and order outweighs even the most desperate
circumstances. In that passage, someone who steals because he’s starving still must make restitution; he stole something that belonged to another.

So, why not just grant amnesty? The bishops and their cronies imply that a wave of the wand legalizes the 12 million illegal aliens. Presto change-o, the
law now says you’re all legal!

But amnesty abuses the rule of law. It rewards lawbreakers for their lawbreaking instead of holding them to the consequences set forth in the law they originally
broke. Proverbs 24:23-25 condemns such miscarriage of justice: “Whoever says to the guilty, ‘You are innocent’” shows “partiality in judging.”

Isaiah 5:20 is even more direct: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” Willfully sneaking into another country isn’t an innocent act. It’s not
even a victimless crime. It reflects intentional sin.

In America, where Judeo-Christian principles inform the structure of our public institutions, mass immigration and legalization proposals seem contrary
to “the consent of the governed.” Hawking amnesty and profligate “guestworker” programs risks not only the economic well-being of our poorest fellow citizens,
but also shows favoritism to the wealthy — something both Old and New Testaments decry as sin.

It would be helpful to this debate if biblically ignorant politicians held their tongues and Big Religion sought honest biblical direction before staking
positions on policies that clearly fall within the realm of prudential judgment.

Mr. Edwards, coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, is an adjunct fellow with the Hudson Institute.