Google
 

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Is Healthcare Worth The High Cost?

The following Quotes are taken from last night's broadcast of CBS news as reported in this newsbusters article.

I have heard these two points made many times by the MSM and by politicians. I have always been disturbed by them. It seems to me that we should be grateful that modern-day heath care is available. Modern health-care is a luxury that has never been available to humanity before. It is astonishing that something that has never been available in the past, is now considered an inalienable right by many in the media and in politics.

"Since 1999, health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent -- four times as much as wages."
In the past decade, costly medical research, medications, revolutionary equipment and minimally invasive surgical techniques have been developed. New lifesaving treatments and quality-of-life improvements are available today that were not available a decade ago. New diagnostic equipment has been invented and made widely available. It stands to reason, that the cost of the development and implementation of these improvements to our heath-care system need to be paid for. It is a good thing that we are devoting a larger portion of our incomes to lifesaving and quality-of-life improvements due to medical advancements.

"And about one and a half million American families lose their homes to foreclosure every year because of sky high medical bills."

Freedom is defined as the ability to make your own choices. Today we have the freedom to choose life-saving medical diagnoses and treatments that were not available a generation ago. Often these treatments are costly and tough choices must be made. We are free to chose between costly medical treatment and the possible forfeiture of our savings and home. We are also free to hold on to our assets and risk the primitive treatments that were available generations ago. Today we have more health-care choices because many treatments are available today that were not available years ago. Although the cost is higher, we have more freedom to choose today. . In the past, death and/or discomfort was our only option.

IMHO, socialized health-care will reduce our health care options in the future.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Obama's Czars Plan Radical Changes

Obama has appointed 28 Czars. These Czars have not been vetted nor confirmed by congress. For the most part, these Czars duplicate the roles of Obama's cabinet secretaries, with one important difference. Czars are accountable to no one but the president.

Van Jones, Obama's "Green Energy Jobs Czar", is an admitted communist and anarchist. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sam-theodosopoulos/2009/07/10/fox-news-notes-communist-past-green-jobs-czar

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet. http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Why is our country changing without anyone noticing. We never had 28 Czars in the White House before. This needs to be challenged constitutionally. Obama is filling the White House with entire departments that have no congressional oversight nor system of checks and balances. Is the real power being wielded by these new Czars rather than the Cabinet Secretaries? Why didn't the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, accompany Obama on his recent summit tour in Europe? Are Obama's cabinet secretaries purely figureheads for ceremonial purposes without any real power?

Why is the executive branch making up new rules as it goes along? Our country is changing radically and no one is noticing.

The following is a list of current White House Czars:
1. Herb Allison-TARP Czar
2. Alan Bersin-Border Czar
3. Dennis Blair-Intelligence Czar
4. John Brennan-Terrorism Czar
5. Carol Browner-Energy Czar
6. Adolfo Carrion, Jr-Urban Affairs Czar
7. Ashton Carter-Weapons Czar
8. Aneesh Chopra-Technology Czar
9. Jeffrey Crowley-AIDS Czar
10. Cameron Davis-Great Lakes Czar
11. Nancy-Ann DeParle-Health Czar
12. Earl Devaney-Stimulus Accountability Czar
13. Joshua DuBois-Faith-based Czar
14. Kenneth Feinberg-Pay Czar
15. Danny Fried-Guantanamo Closure Czar
16. J. Scott Gration-Sudan Czar
17. Richard Holbrooke-Afghanistan Czar
18. John Holdren-Science Czar
19. Van Jones Green-Jobs Czar
20. Gil Kerlikowske-Drug Czar
21. Vivek Kundra-Information Czar
22. George Mitchell-Mideast Peace Czar
23. Ed Montgomery-Car Czar
24. Dennis Ross-Mideast Policy Czar
25. Gary Samore-WMD Czar
26. Todd Stern-Climate Czar
27. Cass Sunstein-Regulatory Czar
28. Paul Volcker-Economic Czar

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

FOX News and Michael Jackson Prove: Only a Feminized Society Can Be Obsessed With Singing And Dancing

I don't understand why over 90% of all news coverage on FOX News was devoted to Michel Jackson last Thursday and Friday. I was disappointed that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly were preempted by coverage of Jackson's death which had no new information to add over the course of 2 days. As Glenn Beck repeatedly said: "the latest update reported that Michael Jackson is still dead".

Having said that, Michael Jackson was a troubled soul who could sing and dance extremely well. I don't understand why our culture places such a high value on singing and dancing.

Let me repeat that because this truly puzzles me. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY OUR CULTURE PLACES SUCH A HIGH VALUE ON SINGING AND DANCING. In my humble opinion, this is a sign of our society has become feminized.

On Friday there was virtually no news coverage on what might become the most significant legislation in Americas history. The House passed the "Cap and Trade" bill by a narrow margin. If this legislation is passed by the Senate, it will become the largest tax increase in US history. Also, it gives the federal government virtually limitless powers over the way that Americans live their lives.

IMHO, only a feminized public would be more interested in singing and dancing than the future of their country. FOX News was just giving the public what they wanted to see. If they did not give Jackson's death wall-to-wall coverage, many viewers would have simply found it elsewhere. However, I still blame FOX news for not having the integrity of covering the news on Thursday and Friday. FOX News should call itself FOX entertainment, because that is what it has proved itself to be.

Back to Jackson. Jackson's life is just another example that proves that an abusive childhood can cause mental disorders, including deviant sexual desires such as attraction to children and/or attraction to the same sex. IMHO, sexual deviants, like homosexuals, pedophiles, those with fetishes like cross dressing and S&M behavior, aren't born that way, but they are damaged emotionally in their early childhood which permanently alters their sexual desires.

Although Jackson was acquitted on all child molestation charges, Jackson has admitted that he has an affinity for children and he enjoys sleeping in the same bed as children and sees nothing wrong with this behavior (it is normal for him).

Also, Jackson found some legal loopholes that enabled him to purchase his own children by paying a woman (his wife at the time) to undergo in vitro fertilization and then turning the children over to him for adoption. Apparently, he chose not to conceive children like normal people do in order to have a family. As far as I know, he didn't have homosexual partner either. It appears that he was attracted only to children. However, it appears that he has not acted upon any illegal and/or immoral sexual relations with children. He was able to restrain himself, according to all indications in these abnormal sexual desires.

This proves two things:
1) Abusive childhood can lead to deviant sexual desires.
2) Deviant sexual desires can be controlled.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Girls Just Want To Have Fun

Abortion is a very selfish and cowardly act that affects both men and women.

First of all, once the baby is conceived, the father has no choice whether his potential son/daughter survives and whether his responsibility of fatherhood begins. It is only the woman's choice. Abortion laws only give the mother a choice, not the father.

Secondly, the vast majority of abortions are solely for the convenience of a pregnant woman. Most often abortions are performed because an unplanned pregnancy will interfere with the mothers schooling, career plans and/or dating and romantic life. IMHO, I think it is selfish and cowardly to deny life to your potential child because of those reasons. Could a man site those reasons for refusing to pay child support?

Even in today's day and age of moral equivalencies, most people understand that abortion is wrong and should only be used as a last resort. However, today's popular culture often glorifies, celebrates and embraces things that are wrong while they shun, mock and attack positive and noble lifestyles and institutions.

Adultery is clearly wrong, yet it is being celebrated and embraced by today's movies and TV shows. Our former president Clinton gained popularity after being "caught in the act" of adultery.

Divorce, which often results from adultery, affects a majority of today's married couples. Divorce is clearly wrong because it breaks a sacred promise between two people. However, divorce is no longer something to be ashamed of. Divorce is clearly one of the biggest failures that one can have in one's life, yet it is completely accepted by society without the slightest hint of stigma.

Why are liars and cheaters in business and politics despised, while liars and cheaters in marriage are not? If children are societies most valued asset, why are they utterly devalued by divorce and abortion?

Gang-bangers are celebrated and embraced. Today's popular culture imitates these psychotic outlaws in dress, language attitude and music. At the same time, Christianity, the Boy Scouts and the military are mocked and attacked by today's popular culture, the media, the arts and by universities.

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, putting personal happiness first, thrill seeking and self esteem.

Clearly, the main reason for abortion has nothing to do with privacy. The main reason why 50 million potential souls were snuffed out through abortion in this country is because "girls just want to have fun".

In this atmosphere, right and wrong become indistinguishable and unimportant. That is why there is no public dialogue on abortion. If this attitude was prevalent 50 years ago there would have been no civil rights movement. If this attitude prevailed 150 years ago, there would have been no abolition of slavery.

The civil rights movement and abolition of slavery began in the Church, not in academia. Reverend Martin Luther King was a Minister first and a PHD in theology second.

The civil right movement was not based on a struggle between fun and restraint. The abortion issue is. That is the reason why abortion proponents are reluctant to discuss this issue. It is because they must hide the main reason why they are pro-abortion. That reason being: "girls just want to have fun"

Friday, June 26, 2009

Socialized Health-Care Will Lead To Rationing Treatment and Euthanasia

President Obama said that his health-care plan will reduce the overall cost of medical treatment. What he didn't tell you was how that goal will be attained. Obama said that the government will cut inefficiencies and focus on prevention in order to cut costs. While prevention does save some money, it is a small fraction of the savings that death will bring. Denying certain costly procedures to those deemed by bureaucrats as "unlikely to benefit from them", will bring about the lions share of savings in a government run health-care program.

Most people spend most of their health-care dollars in the final years of their life. Imagine how much savings could be achieved if we simply did not treat people who are deemed to be "unlikely to benefit from treatment" because they are elderly. Cost savings could also be achieved by limiting care to those who contributed to their own maladies with unhealthy behavior such as excessive drinking, narcotics abuse, smoking, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle. Bureaucrats, not families, doctors or patients, will make these tough decisions if the government takes over our nations health-care system.

This approach will be totally justifiable when tough choices must be made by government bureaucrats, not individuals, about how to spend our limited health-care dollars. Procedures and surgeries for younger patients, with many more years of life expectancy potential, will obviously be a better investment than for treatment 80 year old infirm patients or chronic alcoholics.

Desperate times will call for desperate measures. Already our medicare and social-security systems are headed for bankruptcy. The best way to relieve this strain on an overburdened system is to ration care to the elderly and those who require a disproportionate share of medical care do to their lifestyle choices and unhealthy behavior.

Under Obama's proposals, euthanasia will eventually become an option. The government will run PSAs advising people that euthanasia is the patriotic thing to do for those who have no longer have the wherewithal to "give back" to their country in other ways.

There is no doubt that the cheapest form of health care is allowing patients to die. This has become part of health-care system in other countries with socialized medicine. Allowing patients to die will undoubtedly become part of an American socialized health-care system.

I have never seen a well intentioned liberal program that did not have "negative unintended consequences" that hurt the very same people that they were trying to help. In this case, nationalized health-care will limit expensive treatments to the elderly and to the poor the most.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

The Liberal Agenda is Often a Racist Agenda

The political fallout that resulted from the recent shooting in the Holocaust Museum seemingly blames "right wing" racism as the culprit. Amazingly, the responsibility of the "individual" gunman is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media. This reaction serves to bolster my assertion that "collectivism" is a province of the left.

Collectivists often separate people into categories based on superficial differences such as race, income level, ethnicity and education. In my humble opinion, the important distinctions between people, are those of character and behavior. Collectivists often downplay or rationalize bad behavior, while emphasizing superficial differences of race and ethnicity.

Liberals find it hard to swallow that this deranged lone gunman acted on his own. News reports are trying to tie his actions to a white racist "collective". They are reporting that there is an increase of white supremacist racism in America. They are trying to connect imaginary dots to prove that he was just a pawn, that was "duped" into carrying out the dirty work of organized racist groups.

This is preposterous. White Americans have been cowered into showing extreme sensitivity toward all minorities, whether ethnic or racial. As a matter of fact, it has become so bad, that any criticism from the right on any person of color is considered as racist. Often criticism of Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor is deemed as racist based solely on the racial difference between them and their critics. Likewise opponents of illegal immigration are often labeled as xenophobes and racists. Also, opponents of gay marriage are often demonized as intolerant or bigoted.

Collectivist/Liberals look at one's race and ethnicity first, in an effort to categorize them and justify or criticize their behavior, and to demonize them or their critics. This is exemplified by affirmative action and racial quotas. On the other hand, most conservatives look at an individuals' behavior and character while completely ignoring his/her race.

In my experience, most racism in today's America originates from liberals and minorities themselves. A recent example is Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Yesterday, when Rev. Wright was asked if he had been contacted by Obama recently, he said:

"Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office," Wright said, according to Virginia's Daily Press. "They will not let him ... talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is."

Wrights response is indicative of someone who looks at "David Axelrod", (Obamas campaign manager and top aid) and other top ranking officials in the Obama administration as "Jews" rather than an individuals. Rev. Wright is clearly a racist who can't see the Forrest for the trees. This "us against them" mentality is prevalent among liberals. When today's civil rights leaders preach with this attitude, they do a disservice to those who they claim to support.

We need to hold individuals accountable for their actions. Racial differences are superficial and are only taken into account by shallow, narrow-minded people. Often racists, disguised as civil rights leaders, try to stir up the pot of racism, hoping that they will end up on top. Many of them make careers out of "race bating". A good example is "Al Sharpton",

Reverend Martin Luther King was one of the greatest civil rights leaders of all time. He did not preach messages of racial disparity or divisiveness. Instead, Martin Luther King said, "Judge not by the color of one's skin, but judge by the content of of one's character. This message applies to whites, blacks, and people of all colors. According to King's words, there is no such ting as "reverse discrimination". All people should be color blind and judge people solely on their character and behavior. The time for racial divisiveness is over and new era based on behavior, and character has begun. Although King also holds a PHD in theology, often, today's liberals downplay that he was inspired by God and not by academia.

Unfortunately, race baiters like, Sharpton, and Wright and many so-called liberals, still cling to politics that emphasize racial and ethnic differences rather than emphasizing the meaningful differences that differentiate us. These meaningful differences include character, behavior and personal choices.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Is Shame and Stigma a Necessary Part of a Healthy Society?

I was amazed when I heard a radio commercial for the "Ashley Madison Agency" this morning.

The Ashley Madison agency is an online dating web-site that specializes in finding dates for married people. I clicked on the site and found out that they charge $249.00 for a three month membership. They guarantee that you will have an "affair" or you get your money back. They claim to have nearly 4 million members. I didn't bother registering to find out more information. A limited amount of information can be gleaned from their home-page. here is the link: http://www.ashleymadison.com/

I find it amazing that advertisements that promote adultery are on main-stream talk radio stations. Adultery used to be illegal, now it is being marketed, promoted, packaged and sold shamelessly.

I understand that we are all imperfect and many people cheat on their spouses. However, it is infuriating that cheating has become accepted, celebrated and embraced by mainstream Americans. People literally can not tell right from wrong. This is the same feeling that I got during the Clinton impeachment hearings. I was Angry at Americans who accepted President Clinton's perjury and televised lies, rather than shaming him for it.

I understand that we are all imperfect and fall short at times. This is exactly why we often need help staying on the right track. Why is there no shame anymore? Isn't shame and stigma a nessisary part of a healthy society? Doesn't shame and stigma provide the nessisary motivation for us to do what is healthy and positive for ourselves, our families, our society and our nation?

I guess that there is some shame and stigma left in today's popular culture. Unfortunately it is used against conservatives, Christians and honorable Americans with traditional values.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Why Life's Obstacles Are a Necessary Part of Our Spiritual Life

A fundamental flaw in liberal thinking is that many liberals believe that all obstacles, in the road of life, are bad. I strongly disagree. I believe that God put obstacles in all of our paths to help us grow spiritually. IMHO, spiritual growth is the reason for being. Therefore, obstacles, sorrow, misfortunes, failures and even tragedies, are a nessisary part of our spiritual life, just as food and water are a nessisary part of our physical life. Often overcoming obstacles and dealing with them in accordance with universal spiritual principles, leads to spiritual growth, improves our eternal souls, and brings us closer to God.

I once saw an episode of "Twilight Zone" where a horrific low-life gangster died and was immediately sent to the "afterlife". In this afterlife, his every wish was granted and his every desire fulfilled. He lived in a luxurious mansion. He was surrounded by beautiful women who were willing to fulfill all of his fantasies. He had servants, fancy cars, luxurious clothing and he was very popular. Everyone laughed at his jokes and when he gambled, he always won.

At first he was overjoyed at his good fate. However, he was a bit surprised that an evil man like himself would end up in heaven.

As time went by, he became bored with all of his luxuries and good fortune. Pretty soon his boredom tuned into discontent, anger, displeasure, and torment. As strange as it seemed, he could no longer tolerate his good fortune. Everything was too predictable. He asked to lose occasionally when he gambled. But this only infuriated him more, because he knew that when he lost, it was because he had asked for it to be that way.

Finally, at the end of the program, he told the man in charge that he was no longer happy. He demanded to be happy. He said that he was supposed to be happy in heaven. The man in charge looked at him and laughed heartily. He said, "heaven, what made you think that you are in heaven?". This is the other place.

My point is that if liberals got everything that they thought would make an ideal world, they would be miserable and spiritually depraved. This is exactly what we are witnessing in today's popular culture.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Why Multiculturalism is Bad For America

Multiculturalism is the exact opposite of what our great American culture was founded upon. Most American Coins have the words "E Pluribus Unum" stamped on them. This means: "Out of many, One". America has always been a melting pot in which many diverse cultures are mixed together and have been transformed into a single great American culture in the end.

Our unique American culture has led us to be the freest, wealthiest, most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. This is NOT due to cultural diversity, but to the contrary, this was due to our founding principles and concept of "the American melting pot".

Freedom from religious persecution is one of our founding principles. Of course religious freedom is part of the American culture. However, a moral and religious people is required for self governance.

In today's day and age, Christianity is often ridiculed, mocked and discredited. Diverse cultures, that often lack faith in God and sometimes are incompatible with Jedeo-Christian principles, are often celebrated, embraced and encouraged by today's schools, the media, popular culture and the government. In my humble opinion, this trend needs to be reversed if we are to survive as a nation and a culture.

Our first founding document, The declaration of Independence states:

............We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".................

This simple document eventually led to the idea of self-governance as outlined in our constitution and our bill of rights. These ideas eventually led to the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement which set an example for the rest of the world. The experiment of American self-governance by a moral and religious people has brought charity, freedom and security to all corners of the globe. The American experiment has culminated in what later became the unique American culture.

Historically, many people have fled persecution, oppression and poverty to build a better life for their families in America. People from diverse cultures came to America with hopes and dreams of melting into our culture and raising American children who would have opportunities that were not available in their homeland. They left their old cultures behind to become Americans.

America became stronger when foreigners became Americanized. Immigrants took on American sounding names, they learned English, they sent their children to American schools, they dressed like Americans, they celebrated American holidays, they took pride in being American and they became part of the rich and wonderful American culture. For the most part, they left behind the culture, language and most of the customs of the land that they fled. This was true for my own grandparents and for most grandparents of my generation.

When we encouraged immigrants to take pride in America and become Americanized, we built a stronger, wealthier and freer nation.

If we encourage Americans to celebrate the various, cultures, languages and customs of the nations that these immigrants fled, America will inevitably become less united, weaker, poorer, more corrupt and less free, like the nations that these immigrants fled from in the first place.

Immigrants came here to seek a better life in the greatest nation that this world has ever seen. The more Americanized they become, the better they will be able to avail themselves of the boundless opportunities that America has to offer. We do ourselves and our immigrants a disservice if we do not insist on unity and pride in America's, culture, language and rich heritage.

United we stand, divided we will fall. Multiculturalism tends to divide, categorize and highlight the differences among people and cultures. Multiculturalism asks us to accept things that are not always in the best interest of America. The unique American culture has led us to prosper and grow and be a beacon of freedom and inspiration for the rest of the world. America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. This can only be diminished by diluting our rich culture, language and noble heritage with multiculturalism.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Wisdom and Humility are in Short Supply on University Campuses

Humility is a spiritual principle that I admire when I see it in others. Humility is the acknowledgment of our imperfections and flaws. Humility also acknowledges that we are all relatively ignorant and powerless compared to our creator and to all of the unknown knowledge and power in the vast universe. The more man learns, the more he comes to realize how much he does not know.

However, today's pervasive popular culture values the exact opposite. They admire the unmitigated hubris and braggadocio of those who define their success by popularity, wealth and pleasures. Achieving popularity, wealth, thrills and self esteem are touted as the highest goals in today's popular culture. Seeking physical and mental supremacy is lauded, while spiritual growth is ignored and/or mocked. I beleive that we all need to achieve physical, mental and spiritual growth in order to fulfil our human potential and to ensure that our nation remains strong, prosperous and free.

Today's universities teach unproven theories, as if they were fact. These theories include the alleged dangers of AGW (anthropogenic global warming), spontaneous creation, evolution, the evils of American history and diversity and multiculturalism as a virtue. On today's college campuses, public discussion about religion is discouraged and mocked, yet discourse on sexuality is encouraged and taught in classes. Students who have faith in God are often discredited as gullible, brainwashed, child-like, primitive, bigoted and narrow-minded. Those who experiment with "alternative" sexual preference and behavior are touted as open-minded, enlightened, modern and cool.

It is clear to me that everything is upside-down on today's college campuses. "Up" has become the new "down". Strong social pressure is brought to bear on those who refuse to "go along with the program". Diversity of race, language, culture and sexual preference is encouraged, while diversity in the "arena of the above-mentioned ideas", is discouraged. Those who do not fall in line are socially ostracized by their peers on university campuses. University staff encourages labeling people who hold the above beliefs as narrow-minded, bigoted and intolerant by university staff.

Wisdom is humbling. Today's popular culture, as evidenced by the pervasive attitude on today's university campuses, proves that wisdom and humility are both in short supply.

Monday, May 25, 2009

America: The Band Keeps Playing as the Great Ship Sinks

Our government is telling us that our nation is in a financial crisis because of too much borrowing and spending. The solution that they are implementing is more borrowing and spending at the highest levels in history.

What is really amazing is that most people are not challenging this solution which clearly defies reason, commonsense and personal experience. It seems like our leaders are purposely trying to destroy the American economy.

It seems that America's population is suffering from a collective "mental disorder". Today's popular culture seems to be in denial about many "plain truths" that seem so obvious to me, but most people are oblivious to. I feel like I am the only sane person in an insane asylum. This is scary because I know that I am not "normal" myself.

Today's America is reminiscent of the Titanic as she sank. The band kept playing as the great ship went down.

This was the feeling that I got when I recently toured the country. I was suprised to find that many huge, massive casinos had sprung up everywhere, even in the middle of rural areas in Kansas, Iowa and Wyoming. The reckless abandon that these casinos represent, seem to be a metaphor for the behavior and attitude of today's government and culture.

These casinos were filled with "senior citizens" who were happily squandering their life's savings and their children's inheritances for a few moments of joy and thrills in their remaining years.

The Spiritual Root Cause of America's Economic Woes

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Why are liberals so vulgar and hateful?

Here is an exerpt from a liberal blog, the "dailykos", that made it to the top of the Kosmonauts’ recommended list:

F*** you Dick Cheney! F*** your pompous condecension. F*** your straw men! F*** your mischaracterizations! F*** your sniveling attempts to keep you and your buddies asses out of federal (somewhat offensive movie quote removed, happy now?) prison! F*** your presumption that we are a bunch of cowering idiots looking for daddy to protect us from the big bad terrorists. Just F*** YOU!...

Below the article is a poll asking if Cheney is an a-hole a f-ing a-hole, or pie. The "FA" option is winning as of Sunday morning, with more than 3,000 votes (and 94 percent of the total.)

Here is the link to the entire article (caution: the explitives are not cleaned up in the original version): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/21/11443/4167/275/733993

Can you imagine the reaction if a conservative blogger would launch this type of hateful emotional attack against Obama?

I have never seen this kind of unabashed hatred and vulgarity on any of the conservative websites that I frequent. The Daily Kos is one of the top liberal web-sites. Why do liberals get a pass for such bad behavior?

Why is it acceptable amongst liberals to display hate and intolerance against those who they disagree with? How can liberals also make accusations of intolerance and bigotry about anyone who disagrees with them.

The only answer that I can think of, is that liberalism is based on emotion, rather reason.

Have we lost all standards or is there a double standard? Why?

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Our Corrupt Amoral Government is What We Deserve Because Con-men Can Only Trick Greedy, Dishonest and Amoral People

Often the truth is not popular. Currently, 40% of American children are born out of wedlock as our society is going to "hell in a hand-basket". IMHO, the current breakdown of our society in the area of crime, drugs, violence, huge prison population, illiteracy, corruption, spiritual depravity, disrespect, vulgarity and inconsideration is all due to the breakdown of the intact family.

Also, spirituality is largely ignored in modern child rearing. For our society to prosper and strengthen, we must place value on physical, mental and spiritual growth (body, mind and soul). In today's popular culture, we concentrate on the first two, but largely ignore the importance of spiritual growth and teaching universal spiritual principles to our children.

If you have helped foster this situation by producing b*astard children or by participating in the break up your own marriage, you should feel ashamed of yourself, because you are part of the problem.

I am sorry if my words hit close to home, but this is the unabashed truth as I see it.

We should look at ourselves for solutions, rather than pointing fingers at others. Our corrupt amoral government is what we deserve because con-men are only capable of tricking greedy, dishonest and amoral people. The rhetoric of many liberals, feminists and gay activists toward family values and universal spiritual principles is despicable.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

This El Monte Police Officer Was Justified in Kicking This Suspect in Head as He Surrendered



Read the following article and watch the embedded video to understand a reasonable explanation from the police union about why this head-kick was justified. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/the-kick-deliver-by-an-el-monte-police-officer-to-the-head-of-a-car-chase-suspect-laying-on-the-ground-at-the-ending-of-a-tel.html

The reason that the Police union gave to justify kicking this suspect was that it was a distraction technique that police officers are taught in police training classes. Often a violent and unpredictable suspect will feign surrender, while planning a surprise attack on the arresting officer. Police are taught that a swift jolt to the head will disorient a suspect, so that they can handcuff the suspect without putting themselves at risk.

However, I believe that the kick delivered to this suspects head was justified for an entirely different reason. The cop was completely justified for kicking the suspect in the head because the suspect was obviously a "WASTE OF HUMAN FLESH".

Click on the above link to view the suspect's photo. Obviously this "waste of human flesh" has tattooed himself in such a way as to make himself look like a violent, psychotic felon who is prone to act, unpredictably and irrationally, especially when cornered like a rat.

The suspect's "markings" warned the officer that this suspect was potentially dangerous. The officer was justified by nullifying this potential threat with a kick to the head.

The only reason for a gangster in today's America to tattoo himself in such a manner, is to warn people that he is capable of psychotic, unpredictable,violent and irrational behavior. In other words, he is advertising that he is dangerous.

Similarly, poisonous snakes advertise the danger they pose with bight distinctive markings and sounds. These prominent markings on venomous snakes warns predators that these snakes are potentially dangerous. As a result they are usually left alone.

Just like the poisonous snakes, Extreme markings on gangsters are usually not idle bluffs. In most cases these anti-social sociopaths will be dead or in prison before their 21st birthday as a result of their psychotic behavior. However, their warnings are real, if you mess with them, you are likely to suffer a fatal blow, just like with venomous snakes..

However, even in nature there are posers. There are "look-alike" snakes that are harmless. However, the casual observer can easily confuse them with their deadly their deadly counterparts. In most cases, harmless snakes are protected by their markings that imitate those of their venomous counterparts. However, there are times when their bluff could lead to their death.

I understand why the psychotic, criminal gang member would use extreme tattoos to warn his enemies that he is capable of unpredictable, deadly behavior. However, I do not understand why otherwise normal youngsters in today's popular culture would imitate these violent, psychopathic, gangsters with tattoos, mannerisms, dress, gestures language, music and attitude.

The popularity of "gangster look-a-likes" in today's popular culture is more proof of the statement: .

"When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their head. Our children lose the ability to distinguish between, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, etc."

Rather than finding myself in the position of being a victim of police brutality, I personally avoid this scenario by taking the following precautions:

1) I don't run from the police unless I am certain that I will escape. If I am caught, I understand that I am at risk of being beaten.

2) I do not purposely alter my appearance to look like an unpredictable psychotic. This strategy may backfire on me.

3) I speak respectfully to the police. I call them "officer" and I say "yes sir" and "no sir". I keep my hands in full view of the police and make no sudden moves. I strictly follow police instructions whenever I have contact with them.

4) I do my best to keep my criminal record free of felony convictions.


This has been a winning formula for me in avoiding police brutality. I think that these ideas should be taught in schools, universities, the media and the "arts". Instead, they are teaching today's youths that police are brutal, racist and unfair. They are teaching our youth that police are their enemies rather than their strongest defense against psychotic criminals and the like.

Today's police are the most pacified police that this nation has ever seen. They are afraid to perform their job effectively, lest they get criminally charged, sued or fired for doing their job too well. There has undoubtedly been an increase in cases of police brutality brought against cops. It is ironic that this is happening in a time when America's police have become sissified and pacified and less actual brutality is actually being committed.

In many cases, today's police have lost the ability to protect themselves in the sissified environment that now defines most police forces. It stands to reason, that if the criminals fear the cops, rather than the other way around, there will be less crime and less people behind bars.

The commonsense way to reduce crime in America is to have tougher cops, stronger families, and independent citizens.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Another Example of Deranged Public Behavior by Liberal Activists



This is the latest, in a long line of examples of bad public behavior by liberal activists. I have posted about 8 examples of liberal activists who attempt to discredit, ridicule, insult, bully, intimidate and demonize their opposition publicly in an effort to discredit, silence and marginalize them.

I challenge anyone to provide equally bad behavior on the part of conservatives in recent history. So far, you have a lot of catching up to do.

This bad behavior is straight out of Saul Alinsky's book: "Rules for Radicals". The following article illustrates how Barack Obama also follows the 5 basic rules outlined in Alinsky's book: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTY5ZTA5NmEwMGY4MTFhNDg2ZDg4NjU2MDkxOGYyYTE=&w=MA==

Monday, May 4, 2009

Are Children Brought Up By Gay Parents, Worse Off Than Other Kids?

Homosexual couples with children make up a very small part of society. Most homosexual men, aren't interested in raising children. Of course there are exceptions. Often activists highlight these exceptions as if they were the rule.

However, many lesbian women do have a maternal instinct. Often they conceive these children through unnatural means. Sometimes their children are the result of conventional marriage or a heterosexual relationship before they switched teams, or perhaps they were switch hitters all along.

By the way, most people claim that homosexuals have no choice, but how do they excuse bi-sexual behavior? But i digress.

The majority of "lost children", who have no moral compass, are the result of single parents, products of divorce or products of amoral, irreligious parents who let the public schools, MTV and the popular culture influence their children's spiritual beliefs, or lack there-of.

I do not believe that children who are brought up by homosexual parents are worse off than children of single parents or products of divorce. However, most of them would fit into the third category of: "products of amoral, irreligious parents who let the public schools, MTV and the popular culture influence their children's spiritual life".

There are three legs to the stool of well being; They are mental, physical and spiritual well being. I feel that today's society largely ignores "spiritual" well being.

IMHO, drug addiction, crime, poverty and ignorance are the direct result of "spiritual poverty" that reside in our current society of unprecedented affluence and knowledge.

IMHO, spiritual poverty will undoubtedly lead to physical hardship and mental ignorance in this world and in the next.

Homosexual behavior will always be part of human society, But when you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, you turn reason and common sense on its head. The inevitable result will be less freedom, less prosperity and less safety for all.

Today's popular culture is tearing down the religious, spiritual and moral principles that have resulted in the unprecedented freedom, prosperity and safety that this nation has come to enjoy.

Unfortunately it is likely that those hit hardest by the consequences of this "spiritual vacuum", will be the homosexuals themselves. This is because only a society based on natural law (universal spiritual principles), understands that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Here is a recent article,from Oprah's website, that highlights how Oprah Winfrey, Hollywood stars, and today's popular culture, celebrate, embrace and encourage homosexual behavior. "Why Women Are Leaving Men For Other Women"

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Is hate and intolerance on the part of liberal activists justifiable?

Some people on the far left take the issue of homosexual marriage, and the liberal agenda, very personally. However, IMHO, the ends do not justify the means. Hate and intolerance will not beget love and acceptance. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. Am I asking too much?

Here are three recent examples of hate and intolerance from gay and liberal activists:







Both sides feel that they have the moral high-ground. Many people on the right feel just as passionately about this issue as those on the left do. However, I do not see them behaving baldy. There may be exceptions, but the bad behavior on the left, far outweighs the bad behavior on the right.

Homosexual activists and some on the left are convinced that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions, is a God given right and thus guaranteed by our constitution. IMHO it is neither. IMHO gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is true that some activists and sympathizers on the left get their feelings hurt when others present a contrary opinion on this issue. That does not give them the right to publicly insult, blacklist, and harm the businesses and careers of others.

There are no laws on the books that restrict a persons right to life, liberty and property due to homosexual behavior. Only the laws of nature and God restrict the lives and liberties of homosexual behavior. Gods laws prevents children from resulting from homosexual unions. Gods laws makes those who practice homosexual behavior more susceptible to disease and early death. [Some think that universal health care is a right (which it is not) because it might help equalize the lifespans between the rich and the poor.] Natural law and/or Gods law, allows the innate characteristics of men and women to complement and restrain each other's positive and negative tendencies. Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions does not change these universal laws of God and nature.

However, US laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not restrict homosexual freedom under the law. If those who practice homosexual behavior would like to have a legally recognized union, very few people are opposed to that. However, most people resent the redefinition of the institution of marriage to include homosexual behavior. People on the right feel that they have a legitimate argument, just as much as people on the left feel that their argument is moral, just and fair.

Why is it that one side gives themselves permission to behave badly and intentionally hurt the, feelings, jobs, careers and businesses of those that they have a politically different opinion from? Both sides feel they justifiably have the moral high ground.

This issue can not be compared to race, because race is an innate human characteristic. Homosexual behavior is just that, a behavior. Many people may have overwhelming compulsions and desires to practice this behavior, however, it is still a behavior. Homosexual behavior is not compatible with the values that most of us assign to the institution of marriage. Most of us consider marriage to be the ideal situation to raise our children. There are other situations where children are raised, such as foster care, orphanages, single parents, and blended families However, the intact family that is encouraged through traditional marriage, combines the feminine characteristics of the natural mother and the masculine characteristics of the natural father to provide the best environment for a growing family and society. This has proved to be the ideal way to raise children and to move our society in a positive direction. IMHO, anything that diminishes this institution will lead to the weakening and eventual collapse of our society. Single parents, divorce and marital infidelity should also be discouraged for the same reason.

In California, gay rights activists have gone so far as to demand that the state eliminate marriage altogether and replace it with civil unions for everyone if homosexual marriage does not become the law of the land. This is the clearest example of gay activists' desire to diminish the importance and sanctity of the institution of marriage as we know it.

It is a sign of a declining society when one groups demonizes and intimidates another group for their deep seated beliefs. No one has the right to, intimidate, and bully good people with different opinions into silence. Yet homosexual activists are doing just that with their hateful and intolerant attacks against anyone who publicly states opposing opinions.

I do not object to a civil discussion on this matter, however, I am offended by callous, illegal, immoral and unacceptable behavior by many gay activists and their sympathizers. People opposed to gay marriage feel just as strongly about this issue, yet they restrain their behavior to civil discourse. It seems to me that activists on the left feel that all restraints on human behavior are wrong. This is not true, self restraint and legal restraint is what keeps us free, prosperous and strong.

Lets have a discussion where both sides are equally restrained in their rhetoric. Their may be some exceptions but,the only "hate speech" that I hear in this discussion comes from the left. The ends does not justify the means. Hate and intolerance will not beget love and acceptance. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. Am I asking too much?

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Media Bias and Congressional Deception, the Phony Soldiers Episode

This story, Which I call the "phony soldiers episode", is the clearest example of media bias and congressional deception for political purposes in recent history.

It starts off in 2006, with a Tacoma man named Jesse Macbeth, who took the stage at demonstrations held in opposition to the U.S.’s role in Iraq. Macbeth claimed to be a decorated Iraq war veteran. Macbeth recounted tales of systemic murder and torture performed by US military on Iraqi civilians.

The AP ran a story about Macbeth's allegations of abuse by the US military. Naturally, the Mainstream media (MSM) took the ball and ran with it. The MSM was constantly running stories about how the US military was performing torture and murders. There were many other news stories with similar themes. One other that comes to mind in the "Haditha massacres".

As it tuned out, most of these stories turned out to be false. In reality, Macbeth only made it through only six weeks of Army basic training and never set foot in Iraq. Macbeth completely fabricated his stories about abuses by the US military in Iraq. Macbeth faced charges for making false statements. Macbeth was eventually convicted and sentenced to five months in prison in U.S. District Court in Seattle, three months in a halfway house after his release and three years of probation.

At this point, Rush Limbaugh was talking about media bias in regard to the Iraq war. Limbaugh called those who report falsely on US atrocities in Iraq as "media darlings". Limbaugh was explaining how the media was reporting on all allegations of military abuse with prominent coverage. Limbaugh pointed out that most of these allegations were subsequently proved to be false and the MSM would give the exonerations obscure coverage or no coverage at all.

Subsequently,Limbaugh used the term "phony soldiers" while talking to a caller. Rush was clearly referring to liars like Jesse Macbeth. Jesse Macbeth was a "phony soldier" because he never served in Iraq and made up stories about US military abuses.

At this point in time an unrelated poll came out that indicated that many soldiers in Iraq were opposed the way that Bush was handling the war. "Media Matters", a liberal watchdog of conservative radio, took Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment out of context and reported that Rush Limbaugh was calling soldiers who opposed Bush's Iraq policies "phony soldiers". The MSM picked up the ball and went on a rampage against Limbaugh. The MSM attacked Limbaugh as being unpatriotic. The MSM said that Limbaugh had disrespected our soldiers and veterans because he calls them "phony soldiers' when they oppose Bush's policies in Iraq.

This "out of context" quote of Rush saying "phony soldiers" reached fever pitch in the MSM. Unbelievably, several Senators made speeches on the Senate floor condemning Limbaugh for disrespecting our soldiers and military. They even talked abut voting for "censure" of Rush Limbaugh. After a couple of days of discussing Rush Limbaugh on the Senate floor, Harry Reid wrote a letter to Rush's syndicator. This is the letter that Harry Reid wrote: http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/RushLimbaughSmearLetter.pdf

Here is an unedited version of Limbaugh's broadcast where he used the term "phony soldiers". Please listen to the entire clip. Limbaugh uses the term phony soldiers in the beginning of the clip and then several minutes pass before he explains what he meant by the term phony (fake) soldiers. The MSM reports only report on the first part of this clip and completely ignores the context that Limbaugh provides at the end. Please listen to this entire clip. Here is the youtube video of Limbaugh's broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry5vNorVphM


Limbaugh brilliantly turned this incident to his advantage. As it turned out, Mark Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications, the recipient of Harry Reid's letter of admonition, also happens to be a friend of Rush Limbaugh. Mark Mays turned the letter over to Rush. Then Rush had a brilliant idea. Rush decided to publicly auction this letter off on EBay. Rush pledged to donate the proceeds of the auction to a charity that provides college scholarships for children of American servicemen who have been killed in action. Rush also pledged to match the winning bid with his own donation to that charity.

The auction ran about a week. It was very exciting. Rush announced the high bid every day on his show. Finally, at the end of the week, Rush announced the winning bid. The winning bid was 2.1 million dollars. This was the highest sale on EBay for charity ever. Rush also pledged to match the winning bid and Rush donated another 2.1 million dollars to the charity himself.

What is amazing is that the auction, the record sale price, the 4.2 million dollar donation to charity and the truth about the phony soldiers episode was barely covered by the MSM. In the end, Harry Reid tried to take credit for the events that led up to the 4.2 million dollar charitable donation, although Reid himself did not contribute a dime, even after being asked to donate by Limbaugh.

Here are two more links to youtube videos. The first video is when Limbaugh announces the auction. The second one is an interview on FOX News, a month after the auction, in which Rush confirms that the Charity had received 4.2 million dollars. Be sure to watch the second video in it's entirety. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PppO7hF7ugY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxMv5rlykpo&feature=related


In my humble opinion, this type of bias by the media was no mistake, it was intentional. This is part of a pattern that I constantly see. Do you know the whole story about the 8 marines that were arrested in Haditha, Iraq for war crimes? In a nutshell, they were locked up in a military prison for over a year during their murder trials. Eventually they where not only acquitted, but completely exonerated. The Judge actually called some of these men heroes for their part in the so called "Haditha massacre".

Time magazine wrote an article accusing Marines of atrocities in Haditha. Then the MSM picked up the ball and ran with this false accusations. Of course the media extensively covered the charges and constantly used the term "Haditha massacre". Democratic Pennsylvania Congressman Murtha publicly called these Marines cold blooded killers and actually fabricated stories about their atrocities during news interviews. The charges of atrocities were plastered all over the news reports in gruesome detail. However, the eventual outcome of the trial was barely mentioned by the MSM.

This video is typical of the coverage by the MSM, it includes a tape of congressman Murtha calling our troops cold blooded killers. It was later proved in court that these charges were based on the acuisations of enemy sympathizers in Iraq without any corroboration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7przeLpl2s
Please watch this entire report and extensive interview of Murtha.

Here is a blog about the outcome of the final trial. http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/haditha-marine-commander-exonerated-time-to-charge-murtha/

Friday, April 17, 2009

Tea Parties and Media Bias

The mainstream media (MSM) has been portraying the recent "tea party" demonstrations as being stirred up by rich businessmen, right wing extremists and racists. Nancy Pelocy (Democratic speaker of the house) characterizes these tax day demonstrators as astroturfers, rather than "grass roots" protesters. This is blatantly false.

I strongly disagree with the massive federal spending during the Bush administration. I disagreed with the 165 billion dollar Bush"tax rebate" program, when individuals were sent "$600 tax rebates. I also strongly disagreed with the 700 billion dollar TARP program that was pushed by Bush and McCain. I disagreed with the bailouts of banks, insurance companies, securities firms and automobile companies that were supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Most of the tea party demonstrators are opposed to big government and big government spending regardless of the political party that is responsible. I watched FOX News host, Glenn Beck, at a tea party at the Alamo in Texas yesterday. Beck got louder cheers when he blamed Republicans than when he blamed Democrats for irresponsible spending. Beck, myself and most demonstrators blame both parties, yet the MSM characterizes the tea party demonstrators as anti-Obama right wing extremists. They seek out demonstrators with extreme views to interview and then claim that they are representative of the entire crowd.

There is little difference between the economic policy of the two parties, other than the current administration is spending more and faster than ever before. The same could have been said about Bush at the time, but now the spending has become exceedingly reckless because many say that it will be impossible to repay our debt because of the current level of spending.

The MSM (main stream media) doesn't tell you that there are many Democrats also present at these tea parties. I am fed up with the current crop of politicians on both sides of the isle and so are most demonstrators. Although there are those who have specific right wing agendas that the MSM focuses on, most demonstrators are protesting against big government spending and the ever increasing the size and scope of the federal government.

Also, the MSM has coined the phrase "tea-bagging" to describe these demonstrators. They often use this double-entendre because "tea-bagging" is a word used to describe a sexual fetish. The MSM is now commonly referring to these demonstrators as "tea-baggers" which is a vulgar insult. This not-so-subtle insult is intended to humiliate the hundreds of thousands of legitimate "tea party" demonstrators. It is tantamount to calling civil rights demonstrators the "N" word. The mainstream media has lost all their journalistic standards. They are giggling like juveniles while using the term tea-bagging. Read the following column by Matt Taibbi of rolling stone magazine then click on the video to hear double-entendre by mainstream CNN journalist Anderson Cooper:

The so-called journalist, Matt Taibbi, wrote the following:


I have to say, I’m really enjoying this whole teabag thing. It’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming. For one thing, it’s brought together the words teabag and Michelle Malkin for me in a very powerful, thrilling sort of way. Not that I haven’t ever put those two concepts together before, but this is the first time it’s happened while in the process of reading her actual columns.

Previously Michelle Malkin’s writing was on the edge of unreadable; she’s sort of like Ann Coulter, only without that tiny fraction of P.T. Barnum/Mick Jagger-esque self-promotional flair that makes Coulter at least vaguely interesting. When you read Ann Coulter, you know you’re reading someone who would "F" a hippopotamus if she thought it would boost her Q rating. That’s a rare quality and it commands one’s attention.

Michelle Malkin doesn’t have that. She’s just a mean little dunce who’s wedged herself into a nicely paying career as a GOP spokesclown, and she’s going to ride that gig for as long as it keeps gas in her minivan.

And that’s fine, good for her. But that doesn’t make her readable. However, this move of hers to spearhead the teabag movement really adds an element to her writing that wasn’t there before. Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.





In this next set of clips, see how CNN reporter Susan Roesgen, argues with conservative "tea party" demonstrators. In the second clip she is shown sympathetically interviewing liberal activists. The contrast is stark.





Why is this CNN reporter pushing Obama's agenda and demonizing those opposed to it, rather than conducting objective interviews?

Finaly, here is an example of extreme liberal bias, and the wholesale, demonization, degradation and hatred of demonstrators at the April fifteenth tea parties. Click on the following video to hear the vitriolic rantings of actress-activist Janeane Garofalo, interviewed by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.


I maintain that this bias is the rule, not an exception. The MSM has become blatantly biased in their support of Obama and his policies to the point that they throw journalistic standards out the window in an effort to discredit and demonize public opposition to Obama's policies.

Friday, March 6, 2009

Why Liberals Can't Debate Rationally


I think that I have discovered a core difference between conservatives and liberals. (Yes, I am making a generalization. I have found that most of my generalizations are generally true.)

Liberals often shy away from reasoned debate. Perhaps that is why they are not successful at talk radio. Liberals like to be encouraged, validated and complemented by those who think like them. To a liberal, it is abhorrent, inflammatory and offensive to imply that their conclusions could be faulty. Liberals feel that they are being attacked when someone disagrees with them. When humor is used, they feel that they are being mocked. That is why they get defensive and make claims of being victimized by offensive and inflammatory remarks. To me, speaking the truth is never as offensive as being insincere.

When challenged, liberals often strike back emotionally, with name calling, character assassinations and discrediting anyone that disagrees with them because their feelings and self esteem are hurt when someone tries to prove that their opinion is faulty. Liberals often think that those who challenge their ideas are attacking them personally and they become combative. They would much rather discuss topics with like minded people who validate their opinions, rather than those who would challenge them. Liberal views are generally based on their own self esteem. They espouse opinions that make them feel good about themselves. This is why good intentions often outweigh unintended consequences. Liberals are easily duped into supporting those who articulate positions that make them feel better about themselves. Tough love is wasted on liberals. Liberals often dismiss the cold hard truth as mean spirited.

Juan Williams, NPR commentator and a liberal political pundit, recently said that although most of his views are quite liberal, sometimes his views are not liberal enough to please those on the far left. He said that the criticism that he receives from the far left is far more vicious and personal than the criticism that he receives from the far right. Dennis Miller, a left wing Hollywood comedian who turned conservative after 9/11, says the exact same thing.

Of course you will now dutifully tell me that I am being unfair by stereotyping liberals. You will take the high ground and claim that you never use such unfair tactics to describe conservatives. Well, if the shoe fits, wear it. What I am saying applies to most all liberals that I engage in debate with. To sum it up, liberals prefer to commiserate with people who validate their views, rather than debating those who disagree. Liberals find it offensive when someone else thinks that they are wrong. If a liberal can not convince you that he is right, then you are being narrow-minded, irrational, unscientific, bigoted, offensive or inflammatory. Those are the conclusions that liberals often come to about most of my opinions. Liberals do not seek to find common-ground. Liberals do not respectfully disagree. Liberals often consider my opinions and those who think like me as inferior. Often liberals will make excuses for not engaging into a debate in the arena of ideas. They will say that they don't want to lower themselves or they will discredit their opponent.

I base the above opinions on my personal experience.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Evolution and Entropy

During the past year I drove some 20,000 miles, mostly on rural roads which criss-crossed the continental United States. I listened to talk radio and took in the scenery as I drove. What I saw confirmed my belief that all life has been created and maintained by God and that God had a hand in all evolutionary advancements of life on Earth.

I saw cities and small towns in various states of decay and renewal. I saw roads in various states of decay and renewal. I saw farm houses, barns and grain silos in various states of decay and renewal. I saw railroad tracks in various states of decay and renewal. I saw telephone poles and power-lines in various states of decay and renewal. I saw fences in various states of decay and renewal. I saw bridges in various states of decay and renewal. I saw junkyards full of wrecked cars. I saw pastures with abandoned farm implements strewn about.

North Dakota was the most obvious place where I saw mother nature reclaiming all that man has built upon the land. I went to a web-site that I heard on a local radio program in ND about the numerous "ghost towns" in ND. http://www.ghostsofnorthdakota.com/ There I saw pictures and videos of various ghost towns that were in various states of decay. These pictures and videos were much like the sights that I had been seeing myself as I drove across the Midwest.

I was impressed of how the Earth had begun to reclaim everything that man had built upon it. I realized that all things that are built by man require maintenance. Without maintenance, the forces of nature will destroy and eventually remove all traces of anything that man has built. It occurred to me that it required intelligence with a purpose to build roads, buildings, bridges, fences, RR tracks, telephone poles, power lines, cars and tractors. It also occurred to me that all of these man-made structures and machinery required constant maintenance in order to keep them functioning. I saw that after they were abandoned and maintenance was no longer performed, it didn't take long for them to fall into a state of disrepair and eventually they would be reclaimed by nature, without a trace.

I saw various abandoned barns and farmhouses with their roofs caved in and their walls falling down. Some had decayed to the point that they were not much more than a pile of rubble with trees, shrubbery and grasses growing over them. Others seemed to be mostly complete structures with some broken windows and missing doors. Others were in an "in-between state" with the roof caving in, in the middle, and the walls leaning to one side.

I saw roads that were replaced by the road I was driving on. These abandoned roadways were also in various states of decay. Some were barely recognizable clearings through rocky areas. Other abandoned roadways had their concrete foundation broken into pieces and sticking up at different angles like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that didn't quite fit right. There were trees, bushes and weeds growing in the crevices between the broken pieces.

I saw abandoned railroad tracks that were buckled, broken and sticking-up in the air. There were telephone poles along these abandoned tracks that used to carry wires for signaling and switching devices. The poles were crooked, broken or laying on the ground. The wires were broken in places and drooping down to the ground in others.

I saw rotted and crumbling wooden silos, that were once used for storing grain.

I saw thousands of decaying automobile carcases in junkyards.

I saw old, rusted , decayed, obsolete tractors, combines and farm implements from days-gone-by, abandoned in cow pastures.

This experience proved the second law of thermodynamics which states that everything, in a closed system without outside influences, will decay from a state of order into a state of chaos and randomness. The measure this randomness is called entropy.

I realized that the only thing keeping structures, roads and machines operational, was the human influence of maintenance and repair. When the repair and maintenance ceased, even the strongest bridges, fences, roads and buildings would crumble to the ground in a short period of time.

It occurred to me that all these things have one thing in common. They required a purposeful and intelligent power to be brought into existence. And they continue to require a deliberate and intelligent power to remain functional. If they are neglected they will fall into disrepair, decay and eventually all traces of their existence will be gone.

It required a deliberate and intelligent power to create those houses, barns, roads, RR tracks, power lines, bridges, cars and farm implements. Their very existence is proof that order can be produced from chaos when an intelligent and deliberate power guides the process that created them. Man is that power. The moment that they are neglected by Man, they fall into disrepair, ruin, and eventually disappear entirely.

The contrast between the well maintained roads, bridges, barns, houses, RR tracks power lines, cars and farm implements, and those in various states of decay, proves that an intelligent and deliberate power is required to maintain these things and foster their usefulness and existence.

I reflected on the improvements made to the modern farm implements, which were giants compared to the relics of their ancestors. The modern RR tracks no longer had poles and signal wires alongside of them. They now used wireless communications to control lights and switches. The modern bridges required much less mass to carry heavier loads than the old fashioned bridges did. The car I was driving was air conditioned, had air-bags for safety, had stereo sound for entertainment and I was comfortably driving at 75 MPH on smooth and banked highways. The rotted wooden grain silos had been replaced by massive galvanized steel silos that stored 50 times the volume of grain as their predecessors did.

It seemed like the relics of the past were replaced with more "evolved" and better adapted specimens.

I have previously written in my article "Proof That God Exists", that the theory that life started when a lightening bolt struck a "primordial soup" that contained the right ingredients for life, was absurd. My reasoning was that a single cell is so complex and has so many moving parts and functions, that it would be more likely for a jumbo-jet, fueled up and ready to go, to emerge from that primordial soup, rather than a living organism. That is all true, but what I realize now, is that evolution is impossible unless it is guided by a deliberate and intelligent power. It requires a deliberate and intelligent power to create order out of chaos and to maintain it. A living organism is the quintessential definition of order. Without an intelligent and purposeful hand to create and maintain life, life would devolve, not evolve.

I didn't give this experience much thought until today when I came upon this article that says Ben Stein was dis-invited to speak at a commencement ceremony at the University of Vermont. This was because of students that protested his appearance because of his beliefs in "intelligent design". Here's the link: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/news/sns-ap-people-ben-stein,0,2200002.story

This article about Ben Stein, prompted me to realize the obvious fallacy in Darwin's evolutionary theory. This fallacy is proven by the second law of thermodynamics. I googled "second law of thermodynamics" to find the exact wording of the law. I was surprised to find that the first article that I went to was about the exact same theory that I already had come up with regarding evolution and entropy. Here is the link to that article entitled: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics". This article also dispels common arguments against this theory.

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

Entropy is defined as chaos, disorder, disorganization and randomness. Everything in the universe is becoming more disorganized, chaotic, disordered and random according to the second law of thermodynamics. Everything is decaying and returning to uselessness, randomness and disorder.The only exception that I can see, is when a purposeful and intelligent hand intervenes.

Manufactured things, such as houses, barns, roads, bridges, RR tracks, power lines, cars and farm implements are all examples of extremely ordered, organized things that are built and maintained by man for a specific purpose. The raw materials that were needed to build these things were deliberately removed from the "chaos" and "randomness" of nature and organized into useful objects for man's convenience, in a purposeful and intelligent manner. After Man has no more use for them and they become neglected, they begin to return back to the chaos and randomness of nature where they originally came from.

I realized that an intelligent and deliberate force, Man, was required to create order from chaos. I also noticed that the natural laws of the universe (the second law of thermodynamics) began to return these things to a state of chaos, randomness and disorder, the moment that they had become neglected by Man.

I marveled over these observations during my trip and sought out and examined all of these neglected relics of the past. I imagined what they looked like in their heyday and I understood that all things will eventually grow old, neglected and return to nature unless they are continually maintained.

It would be contrary to the second law of thermodynamics for complicated and ordered "living cell" to be created by chance from the chaos of the primordial soup, unless it was arranged by an intelligent, deliberate power (God) . But let us suppose for a moment that it did happen, and life was created by random chance. It would be contrary to the second law of thermodynamics for this simple living cell to evolve into a more organized, more complicated, more advanced creature, such as a multi-celled organism. Evolution would require the intervention of an intelligent, deliberate power. Only devolution (an increase in entropy) could occur naturally.

The human being is the most ordered and organized combination of natural elements on the face of the Earth. Our eyes are more complex than any man-made camera. Our nervous system is more complex and organized than the most advanced computer. Our balance and agility are unsurpassed by any mechanical device. Our individual thoughts, passions and emotions, appearance and aspirations are unique to each of the 6 billion humans that populate this planet, yet we are all made from the same basic blueprint. Human DNA is that blueprint, which represents the most ordered and organized wealth of information known to man.

It clearly violates the principles of the second law of thermodynamics for humans to have evolved from simpler, less organized life forms without the aid of an intelligent deliberate power. I call that power God. It also stands to reason that life will decay and eventually disappear entirely if neglected by God.

Evolutionists often dismiss the idea of intelligent design as religious zealotry. Universities are teaching Darwin's theory of evolution as it it were a proven fact. For those who agree with these two positions, I have two questions.

Question #1:
How did life start in the first place without outside help? Humans are not capable of producing even a simple one celled living thing from ingredients that have never lived. We have never witnessed the creation of life from ingredients that have never lived. Evolutionists have no reasonable answer to the question: How did life start in the first place, unless they rely on random chance.

Question #2:
If everything in the universe will eventually devolve, how can life evolve without outside help? Although mutations within a species have been observed, I do not believe that the evolution of a new species has ever been witnessed, although thousands of extinctions of species have been witnessed. We have seen the devolution of life, but we have never seen the evolution of life.

Creation, evolution and the size and scope of the universe are beyond current human understanding. We do not know for sure how life began or evolved. Darwin's theory is an opinion and belief based on observation. Evolution is theory, not a fact. I do not have any scientific answers. I too, only have observations, opinions and beliefs.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Republicans Are Acting As If They Are Ashamed to Govern Conservatively

In recent times, conservatism is being demonized much like George W. Bush has been demonized and vilified by the media. The media and President Obama are making a concerted effort to identify everything that is conservative as extreme, evil, unfair, cold-hearted, cruel, hateful, uncool, and unpopular.

Obama has been doing this by publicly demonizing FOX news, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Pretty soon, "conservative bashing" will become just as popular as "Bush bashing" unless we can produce a conservative spokesman with charisma and a message that rings true. Perhaps Michael Steele is that man. It seems that most conservative politicians have either "sold out" or have been cowered into abandoning conservative principles.

Republicans in the house and the Senate are caving-in to liberal ideas, such as expanding the scope and size of the federal government, global warming, comprehensive immigration reform, socialism and diversity as a virtue. Perhaps they don't want to be demonized and vilified as being too conservative. We need proud conservatives in government. We have too many wimpy RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans who seek approval for adopting popular liberal ideas that may have good intentions but also have negative consequences.

Although the Senate republicans are opposed to the "stimulus" bill as presented by the Democrats, they will likely vote for a compromise bill which will also dramatically increases the size and scope of the federal government and drastically increase the national debt.

We need to see conservative Republicans unabashedly calling for restraint in government spending and debt. We need conservative Republicans to boldly call for less government intervention, less government spending, less government debt, less government programs and less government power.

The government caused the housing bubble by pressuring banks to make housing loans to people, regardless of their ability to repay the loan. The government bought these most of these risky loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government caused the mortgage problem.

While it may be a noble cause to make home ownership possible for every American, the hard truth is that not every American is capable of fulfilling the responsibilities that come with home ownership. Without government intervention, home loans would only be granted to those deemed capable of repaying their debt. But because of "The Community Reinvestment Act", Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, banks and realty firms, sought out all individuals who would be willing to sign a loan agreement, regardless of their ability to repay the loan.

The government is the problem. The government is not the solution. The solution resides in hard work, discipline, individual passion, innovation, financial responsibility, and less government tinkering.

Instead, Democrats and Republicans alike, are promoting increasing the size and scope of the federal government, the federal debt and tinkering with private industry to achieve political gaols. Unfortunately, lofty as their goals may be, this does not work. Government intervention inevitably results in unforeseen negative consequences.

Hard economic times call for belt tightening and frugality. It is insane to increase federal borrowing and spending during a period of economic instability. Borrowing and spending will lead to the collapse of our economy. We need conservative leaders who will boldly stand up and preach "first do no harm". Let's pay our bills the best we can, individually and as a nation. Let's spend our money with frugality, individually and as a nation. Let us become more productive and exploit this nations natural resources to its fullest in this time struggle. Let us produce more oil, steel, coal, lumber, plastics, food and manufactured goods. Let us increase our prosperity the old fashioned way. Let's buckle down, work hard and earn it. That is what I am waiting to hear from a politician. So far I haven't heard anything resembling these obvious truths.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Reverend Joseph Lowery Gives Racist Speech at Obama's Inauguration

video

The following is an excerpt from a speech that Reverend Joseph Lowery gave during the recent inauguration of President Barack Obama. Click on this link for a transcript of the entire speech http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/01/rev-lowery-inauguration-benedi.html or click on the embedded video above.

"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around. When yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen."
Martin Luther King said that we should not judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Lowery's statement categorizes people into separate racial groups and judges them on their color alone. I am offended by the outright bigotry and inaccuracy of Lowery's statement. If you are going to use color to generalize behavior of a group, why not be more accurate?

Although it is distasteful for me to categorize people into racial stereotypes and then make wholesale judgments based on race, I will do so here in an effort to demonstrate how absurd, insulting and inaccurate Rev. Lowery's statement is.

The day has come when "blacks will not be asked to get in the back". That day came over 50 years ago, when segregation was ended in America and civil rights laws were put in place and have been vigorously enforced ever since. I know of no known case of racial segregation since. If there were any, they have been corrected by our criminal and civil justice systems. In today's America, blacks are not asked to "get in the back".

On average, blacks are responsible for six times as much violent crime than whites in America. Shouldn't Rev. Lowery have asked the black man to "embrace what is right"?

On average, 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and a majority grow up in fatherless homes. Shouldn't black fathers be asked to "stick around"?

I have learned from my personal experience in predominantly black movie theaters and neighborhoods, that most black people are much louder and more rowdy than most Asians. Shouldn't the black man asked "to be mellow" (especially in movie theaters).

During the past 50 years, affirmative action and racial quotas have insured that under-qualified minorities get ahead of more qualified white men in college admissions and employment opportunities. Black men, women and other minorities have been given an unfair advantage of "getting ahead man" in college enrollment and employment.

Today's civil rights leaders focus on disparities in "outcomes", between different "groups", rather than equal opportunities and responsibilities that all Americans share. I would like to work toward the day when civil rights leaders preach about the the virtues of individual responsibilities, consideration to your fellow man, the importance of the intact family and aspiring to live our lives according to the Christian principles that our great nation was founded upon.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Is The Earth On The Brink Of An Ice Age?

On the global warming front, I read an interesting article today from Pravda, of all places. Of course I do not place much credibility in that state run publication of Russia. But in recent years, our own NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Miami Sun Sentinel, the San Francisco Chronicle and most other newspapers across our country have been promoting a liberal democratic party agenda, rather than objectively reporting the news. The clearest examples of this is the coverage that they have been giving to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), the Obama campaign, Governor Palin, George Bush, the Iraq war and the economic downturn. I would put the credibility of Pravda on the same level as the aforementioned publications. But I digress.

This Pravda article made a compelling case for an upcoming global cooling cycle. Some of their ideas are very similar to the ideas that I wrote about on my blog, before I ever read about them anywhere else. When I read an article that comes to the same conclusions that I have arrived at by using reason, common sense and my personal experience, I know that I am on to something.

Here is an excerpt from my article entitled: "The Global Warming Myth Revisited":

Another thing that I discovered is that co2 is also dissolved in the oceans just like in soda pop. When the ocean temperature rises, co2 is released from the ocean into the atmosphere. This may explain why the records show that global temperature rise, always precedes the increase in co2 in the atmosphere. Articles that I have recently read reiterate these conclusions that I have come to on my own using reason, logic and common sense.
Here is an excerpt from Pravda's article entitled: "Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age"

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

If we do not even know if the climate is warming or cooling, how can we know what action is necessary to safeguard healthy living conditions for all of humanity?

It is a fact that colder temperatures would be far more harmful to humanity than warmer temperatures. Colder temperatures would result in less land that is suitable for farming, less land suitable for habitation, more deaths due to freezing temperatures and increased disease due to more frequent winter conditions.

Let's suppose that CO2 emissions are actually causing the Earth's climate to warm. This would have a positive effect on life on earth, if we were entering an "ice age".

Also, humanity's reliance on fossil fuels has enabled the world population to grow to over 6 billion. This population explosion was made possible because of the advances that a reliance on fossil fuels has brought about. These advances include: mechanized farming techniques, refrigeration, air, ground and sea transportation of food and other vital goods, home heating and air conditioning, the availability of speedy emergency services, the availability of modern medicine, the availability of fresh drinking water, the availability of water for irrigation, the availability of indoor plumbing, etc.

If we dramatically reduced or eliminated the use of fossil fuels before finding a suitable, safe and environmentally safer substitute, we would reduce the worlds limit to sustain human life, and billions would die unnecessarily.

This is why we should not rush into any global solutions "half-cocked". There may be unforeseen negative consequences.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Palestinians Spread Hate in Ft. Lauderdale Florida

Last night an event took place in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida that was reminiscent of radical behavior that you would expect to find in Iran or Syria, but not the US. This event received no media coverage that I know of besides what I heard on Joyce Kaufman's local radio talk show. Joyce Kaufman is a local radio talk show host on WFTL 850 AM, which covers the West Palm Beach to Miami Beach Area of Southern Florida. Joyce happened to be present at this event.

Joyce Kaufman took part in a small Israeli support rally last night in Ft. Lauderdale. There were about 50 pro-Israeli demonstrators present to show support for Israel's retaliatory strikes on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. As time went on, Palestinian demonstrators showed up. Eventually the Palestinian protesters numbers grew to about 250.

I was amazed today when I heard Joyce describe last night's events in Ft. Lauderdale . It sounded like a group of Islamic terrorists that were demonstrating in Iran on behalf of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, it was a group of pro Palestinian demonstrators here in Southern Florida. Here is a link to a video of part of the action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Xl68kP4wo&amp You can also click on the embedded video below to see the same link.

video

Many of the Palestinians are young men and women. There are also children present. Some of the men and children are dressed up to look like terrorists that you often see on video tapes as they behead their hostages. Some have head-scarves covering their entire face with just a slit for the eyes. They are chanting hateful remarks to the Israeli supporters across the street. Examples of the hate speech directed against the Israeli supporters follows:

Go to hell
Up yours
Your mothers are whores
Go back to the oven
You need a big oven, that's what you need
f (expletive deleted) yourself
There is no Israel

In contrast, the Israeli supporters were acting civilly.

At one point, not seen on this video, a large group of Palestinians charged across the street to attack the Israeli supporters. Fortunately, they were subdued and sent back to their side of the street by police. A fight would have surely broken out if not for the police. Although the older pro-Israel group were outnumbered by the younger Palestinian protesters, the Israeli supporters stood their ground and were not cowered. Joyce described the resolute sentiment that bound them together as they were solemnly thinking, "never again".

The news coverage that I have been hearing about Israel's retaliation against Hamas, has always included emotionally charged, deceitful comments from sympathetic sounding Palestinians. I have seen several news reports that showed bombed-out living quarters with children's toys and dolls conspicuous amongst the rubble. Then you hear mournful Palestinians accusing Israel of indiscriminately killing Innocent Palestinian women and children. Even the Miami Sun-Sentinel's coverage, portrayed Palestinians as innocent victims and did not convey the intensity and hateful intolerance of the Palestinian demonstrators.

The truth is that the Palestinians have been lobbing rockets into Israel for over 2 years from the Gaza Strip. Thousands of rockets and mortar shells have been targeted at Israeli civilians. All the Israelis are asking them to do, is to stop these attacks. The Israeli government has said that it would halt the military strikes on Gaza, if Hamas would stop firing rockets into Israel. However, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel. You might say that the ball is in the Palestinians' court. They could stop Israel's retaliation simply by halting their attacks on Israeli civilian populations.

On the other hand, Israel is targeting only military targets and Hamas headquarters, not civilians. Often Hamas uses women and children as shields to protect their supply of weapons. They store them in schools, hospitals, holy mosques and residential buildings to dissuade the Israelis from attacking them. The Palestinians use Israel's superior character and morality as a defense. If the Israelis bomb these strategic targets despite the human shield, then the Palestinians claim that Israel is targeting innocent women and children to gain sympathy from the world media. It is Hamas who is putting their own citizens at risk, not Israel. Why is the American media not making this clear.

The Palestinians also claim that Israel is blockading their territory so they can't get needed food and medicine. This claim is also disingenuous. The Israeli's are attempting to stop Hamas from smuggling in weapons that they will use against Israel. Despite Israel's best efforts, they have managed to smuggle in over 60,000 rockets into the Gaza Strip in the last two years. If they put the same effort into acquiring food and medicine, they could open up their own branch of the "World Food Bank".

I would like to know why the American media is acting as a propaganda outlet for Palestinian deceptions that portray the Palestinians in an sympathetic light. The truth is that the Palestinian people living in the Gaza strip voted Hamas into political office in democratic elections. Hamas's charter states that their goal is to destroy Israel and that is prciscley why they are popular among the Palestinians. The majority of Gaza's residents support Hamas's attacks on Israeli civilians. Gaza is a democracy. However, democracies are not necessarily benevolent. Citizens must be restrained by universal spiritual principles* (morality), for a democracy to foster good will, peace and justice. A democracy founded on hate is tantamount to "mob rule" and will foster evil and violence. This is precisely what we are seeing in Gaza.

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. Obviously the Palestinian protesters in Ft. Lauderdale are in favor of the destruction of Israel as well. They said so. It stands to reason that many of the (innocent) Palestinian civilians also carry this murderous hate in their hearts for the Israelis. That is why they voted Hamas into office. Hamas is carrying out the will of the people that they represent in Gaza.

On the other hand, the Israeli people have always wanted peace. Israel has given land to the Palestinians in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and in Southern Lebanon in an effort to establish peace with the Palestinians. Israel has been constantly attacked with rockets and terror attacks from all three of these territories. They gave land to the Palestinians in a bargain that they hoped would bring peace and show the world that they are willing to sacrifice for peace. Instead, the Palestinians use this land to attack Israel, while neglecting the needs of their own citizens. It is clear the Palestinians that are hell-bent on destroying Israel. The Palestinians do not want peace with Israel, they call for Israel's destruction. Israel has made every effort to live in peace with the Palestinians. The Palestinians have made every effort to kill and terrorize Israeli citizens who they consider sub-human.

There is a CLEAR delineation between right and wrong in this conflict. Israel values LIFE and is acting to preserve the life of its people. Every single life has limitless value. The Palestinians value DEATH and violence. They honor and reward those who murder Israeli civilians. The families of suicide bombers are honored and paid cash. Israel takes extraordinary efforts to retrieve all captured, injured and dead soldiers from the battlefield.

Clearly the Israelis even value the Palestrina's' lives. They make every effort to reduce civilian casualties. Often they leaflet areas before they bomb and sometimes call Palestinian civilians on the phone so they can get out before their bombs fall. The Israeli defense force takes every precaution to minimize civilian casualties, often at a strategic cost.

On the other hand, the Palestinians target Israeli civilians . The Palestinians use innocent women and children as human shields to protect their stockpiles of rockets and weapons. Palestinians preach hate and intolerance and value death. Dead Palestinians have value when "showcased" on the news to gain public sympathy. They use their own civilian casualties, in a disingenuous deception to gain public sympathy. The Israel's value love, acceptance and life. The distinction is crystal clear. There is a clear delineation of right and wrong.

The unrest between Israel and Hamas boils down to one thing: "If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be no war. If the Israelis laid down their arms, there would be no Israel."

Palestinian children, as shown in the video, are taught that Jews are sub-human creatures and they are taught to regard them as pigs and dogs. They are taught this by their parents in their homes, by their teachers in school, by Imams their mosques, by journalists in their media and by their political leaders. This hateful deception is so overwhelming, that some young Palestinians are willing to perform suicide bombings. The brainwashing among the Palestinian youth is intense, widespread and successful. It leads to hate and intolerance being passed down from one generation to the next.

I am horrified to see the same type of propaganda and hate being put into the minds of American youth. It is frightening to see today's American culture abandoning universal spiritual principles* in favor of moral relativism and secularism.

This makes me wonder if today's American media, schools, popular culture and politicians aren't doing the same thing as the Palestinians are doing. Often they push their political agenda by using means that instill hate and intolerance. Many university professors, students, journalists and pop-culture icons are more sympathetic to the Palestinians than they are to our own president, military, and traditional religious institutions of America. In today's popular culture, diversity and multiculturalism are held up as a virtue without regard to principles, while the Jeudeo-Christian values are constantly under attack .

It seems to me that there is a concerted effort to fill the hearts of America's youth with hateful intolerance toward the institutions and culture that has made America great. It is surprising to see that today's youth take the wrong side on many social and political issues. Today's youth have been so confused that they can no longer tell right from wrong. As a matter of fact, they are taught that there are no moral absolutes. They are taught that every issue has two sides and that both sides are right depending upon your perspective. This moral relativism is even being used to justify terrorism by many learned university professors and students.

It was frightening to see the hateful intolerance of the Palestinian protesters in Florida. It is more frightening when I see this same type of hateful intolerance directed against traditional, conservative, patriotic, God fearing Americans by today's modern American popular culture.

*{universal spiritual principles include: selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, forgiveness, love, acceptance, and faith in God}

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Why Statistics Can't Be Trusted

I am often skeptical of "statistics", because they are often skewed. It infuriates me, when someone uses skewed statistics to make a point. If they know that the statistics that they are using are misleading, and still use them to back up their argument, they are not speaking "in good faith".

Several months ago, in the democratic primary campaign, Obama said, "When women still make just 77 cents for every dollar men make - black and Latina women even less - that doesn't just hurt women, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work even harder just to get by". This infuriated me because this skewed statistic has been debunked for many years, Obama must know that this statistic is deceptive, but still used it in a campaign speech. As a result, I was motivated to write the article, " Women in the Workplace". http://garyganu.blogspot.com/2008/07/women-in-workplace_10.html

Also, during the democratic primary campaign, John Edwards quoted statistics of how many veterans are homeless. He tied the large number of homeless veterans, to a poor economy and a Veterans Administration that is unwilling to provide help to these homeless vets. This is something that I have first-hand knowledge about, for I have been homeless in three different sates.. Most all homeless people, end up on the street due to alcoholism, drug addiction and/or mental illness. In my case, it was all three. Most all of the homeless that I met at the shelters and in the soup kitchens, fell into these three categories, Their predicament was not due to economic downturn, unemployment, or lack of government services. There were homeless vets amongst them. Special government help was available for the Vets, but many chose to decline the drug, alcohol or mental health treatment and chose to remain on the streets.

Also, the mainstream media has been quoting statistics about the increase in the suicide rate among American soldiers in Iraq. They use this statistic to bolster their argument that soldiers are fundamentally opposed to US involvement in Iraq. However, when you examine the statistics, you find that the suicide rate for soldiers in Iraq is comparable to the suicide rate for the same age group at home. Also, the number one reason given for suicide in Iraq, is because of the break-up of personal relationships at home. Soldiers have been getting " dear John" letters during all previous wars, some react worse than others. The vast majority of these suicides are for reasons that are not related to the war.

If these statistics were examined in good faith, one might conclude that our young men and women who commit suicide in Iraq, are doing so as a result of a broken heart, not lack of support for their mission. If you follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, you may conclude that love, not war, be brought to an end. Ridiculous? This is an example of how statistics, coupled with emotion and publicity are used to sway the political feelings of the public.

When someone recently quoted me statistics on charitable giving, it did not seem to be in line with what I have been observing. I didn't know why, but it didn't smell right. That is what motivated me to write my article, "Is Charitable Giving on the Rise? http://garyganu.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-charitable-giving-on-rise.html Of course I have no hard data, but I was able to conclude that it is very difficult to account for all charitable giving. My experiences have shown me that much true charity can go unreported and many legitimate charities, have questionable motives.

Someone quoted another statistic about how life expectancy in the US is no greater than in other countries, that have socialized medicine. He concluded that this shows that socialized medicine is as good or better than a privately run medical system. This conclusion did not "smell" right to me, but I did not know why. I quoted him statistics on automobile deaths, murders and drug overdoses. he correctly argued that those numbers were small in comparison the the total number of deaths. I quoted him figures on abortions and he rightly surmised that those were not included in the statistical studies. However, today I thought of four logical explanations as to why, a country with the most advanced and widely available health-care system in the world, has a shorter life expectancy than other nations.

This became clear to me because I am monotoning a stroke victim's diet. I believe that in this case, diet was a major contributing factor, to his two strokes. Not because he was deprived of nutrients in any way, but because a high calorie, fatty, cholesterol laden diet, leads to the build-up of plaque in the arteries after many years of this abundance. In other words, too much of a good thing (food), can lead to medical problems.

When people talk about hunger in America, observation, and common sense are not included in their thoughts or words. In my 53 years on planet Earth, I have never heard of one person dying of starvation in the U.S. If this were to happen, it certainly would make headline news. Yet, hunger is a popular rationalization for providing government subsidized school lunch programs and food stamp programs. I have been amazed that these programs actually advertise on radio and TV, in order to attract more recipients of free food. Hunger is one of our strongest natural instincts. Don't you think that hungry people are capable of seeking out food when they are hungry, without advertising, in this land of abundance.

I have also noticed, contrary to popular wisdom, that people in "poor" neighborhoods are often very well fed. As a matter of fact, overweight and obese people are abundant in "poor" neighborhoods. In America, the abundance of food, not the lack of food, may be what is contributing to shorter lifespans.

Another possible cause of shorter lifespans, is sedentary lifestyles made possible by the advent of modern machinery. Machines have replaced most human labor in the 20th century in modern societies. Lack of exercise, coupled with obesity, are major contributors to premature death.

Another possible cause of shortened lifespan in the US are carcinogens in modern synthetic materials, food additives, pesticides and pollution. In other words, it is possible that many of the miracles of science this modern era has brought us to improve our "quality of life", may have some unwanted side effects that actually are reducing our "quantity of life". Some have been detected, while other have yet to be discovered.

On the other hand, many developing and/or politically corrupt nations like Mexico, have an extremely high mortality rate due to parasites in the water supply and contamination in the food chain. This results from inadequate sewage systems serving large populations and lax regulation and corruption regarding food safety, not from the national medical system.

So there you have it. Off the top of my head I thought of four examples that could cause widespread shortened lifestyles that are unrelated to modern medical care. No-doubt modern medicine adds many years of quality life to billions of people worldwide. However, it is not the only factor in determining a populations average lifespan. Comparisons of differing medical-care systems, can not be determined by lifespan alone.

In conclusion, it seems obvious that statistics can be easily skewed to support or oppose any particular argument. I prefer to rely on my personal experience, reason and commonsense to support my opinions and draw my conclusions.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Time To Spread Some Hate?


Watch this anti-prop 8 video and let me know who is spreading hate?

This star studded, Hollywood produced music video accuses Christians and those who are in favor of Prop 8, of being haters and bigots.

In my opinion, it is equally harmful to falsely accuse people and entire religions of bigotry and hate, as to actually practice bigotry. This new type of bigotry, ruins peoples reputations, causes them to lose jobs and robs them of opportunities. Gay activist groups are now publishing "blacklists" of people and businesses who supported proposition 8, in an effort to ruin these businesses and smear the reputation of good people. This type of bigotry, hate and intimidation is often used by today's gay activists.

In this case, it is the Hollywood anti-Prop 8 crowd, who is practicing bigotry, hate and narrow-minded intolerance.

It seems to me that there is a concerted effort on the part of Hollywood and the "arts" to denigrate Christianity and celebrate homosexuality. The very same people who champion open-mindedness, diversity and tolerance are quick to smear people and groups, who they oppose.

I also noticed a couple of strong contradictions in the song. The song starts off with the lyric," It's a brand new bright Obama Day". The truth is that Barack Obama has said that he was for civil unions, but against Gay Marriage, while he was on the campaign trail.

Secondly, the song went on to say "what a time to be black, a girl or gay". However, exit polls in the recent election where "gay marriage" was overturned, showed that 70% of blacks voted for prop 8 (against gay marriage), while Christians were more evenly divided. During this particular election, there was a higher than usual black turnout at the polls. This was because many blacks were drawn out to vote because of Obama. Ironically, 70% of these blacks voted against gay marriage. Why were Christians demonized in this video, rather than Blacks? Why was Obama praised in this video, rather than demonized for bringing out the people to the polls who ultimately voted down gay marriage in California?

One more point: It seems to me that we are always being lectured by the Hollywood crowd that it is wrong to stereotype people. Can you imagine the public outcry if they stereotyped the black woman as an "Aunt Jamima" or showed the black man eating watermelon and fried chicken? Why is there no outrage for portraying Christians as stuck-up, prudish, deceptive, narrow minded, greedy and hate-filled people?

This music video, is a typical example of how the "left" gets its message out. They use emotion, above truth and reason. In the end, the elaborate, heartfelt symbolism of liberal presentations, overwhelms the substance of their opponents' reasonable arguments.

I think that this video was unnecessarily hurtful to many well intentioned good people, especially the line "Time to spread some hate". I personally know of nobody who feels that way in support of Prop 8. That line is disingenuous and hurtful. I think that frustrated gay activists vent their frustrations with their own form of hate and bigotry. There is no doubt that some gay activists hate Mormons and Christians. To hate groups based on their religious beliefs is the definition of bigotry. That video, stirs up anger. It sure made me angry, and I am neither Mormon nor Christian.

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Do Liberals Have a Feminized Agenda?


Call me a male chauvinist pig, but I believe that men and women are intrinsically different, with different strengths and weaknesses.

Examples of feminine strengths include: compassion, empathy, tenderness, nurturing support of children and appreciation of style, beauty and art. Masculine strengths include: discipline, strength, reason, intellectual curiosity, courage and competitiveness.

There are also negative attributes pertaining to each sex. These need to be restrained by the opposite sex. Negative attributes for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Negative attributes common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.

Some women do possess the desirable characteristics suited for leadership. However, I believe that men are intrinsically better suited to make the tough dispassionate decisions, required by leadership. The emotional detachment of many men (which women constantly complain about), leads to less emotional distraction, when making decisions of great consequence. On the other hand, women are generally more suited to provide the nurturing support, required to raise the best next generation of Americans. The child rearing instinct is so strong in most women, that most children who live with a single parent, live with their mother, at her insistence. Of course these are all generalizations. But I maintain that these generalizations are "generally" accurate.

The popular notion that men's and women's roles are interchangeable in society is not backed-up by reason, common sense and my personal experience. Liberalism is basically a feminine view-point, which many of today's men have adapted. The liberal agenda, places much emphasis on children, child safety, the importance of feelings, and the importance of the arts. This is why liberals are protective of our soldiers, rather that motivated to win wars and strengthen our nation.

Many liberals belief's border on socialism. Socialism is a vain attempt at trying to make sure that everyone is taken-care" of. Many of today's liberals are driven by emotion, rather than reason. This is why liberals dominate the "arts", while conservatives dominate math and engineering fields.

Most everything that I write in my articles is obvious to me, because my thoughts are based on reason, commonsense and my personal observations. I find it amazing that a majority of our society, has been so brainwashed, that they no longer rely on their own eyes, experiences and common sense.

Men and women are intrinsically different, with different strengths and weaknesses that complement each other. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part, you do not see many male pre-school teachers or female auto mechanics. However, in recent years, we have seen a huge increase in the number of female doctors and real estate professionals. This is because , in a free society, people choose careers that they feel most suited for.

Affirmative action in education and employment, pushes people into fields that they are not qualified for or not suited for. This results the in failure and dissatisfaction of many of the participants, as well as lower overall performance in a particular field.

Many local and state governments recognize that women intrinsically have less physical strength and stature than men. As a result, they have lowered the physical requirements for women entering the police and fire departments. In these cases, the overall performance of those police and fire department is diminished, because strength and stature are required to subdue criminals and carry victims out of burning buildings. However, our feminized society is more interested in assuaging feelings of envy, rather than achieving positive results.

Have welfare programs reduced poverty? Have liberal judges reduced crime? Have liberal public school programs improved education? Have public housing programs reduced homelessness? These questions are rarely asked. Failed feminized ideas are often continued and expanded in an effort to show that we care about a problem, regardless of the outcome. When someone stands up to point out that a social program is not working and should be eliminated, he is demonized as being heartless, hateful and bigoted. This is why liberal programs face little opposition.

Female weaknesses are often justified and female strengths are held up as examples for men to follow. Many male strengths are considered to be weaknesses. This explains most aspects of the liberal agenda. For example: The public schools and universities, embrace and celebrate sensitive female characteristics, while deploring that which is brutish, competitive and male. Our current President, George Bush, is nothing but an brutish war-monger, in the eyes of many liberals, despite the fact that his unpopular decisions have kept our homeland safe, in the war on terror, for the past seven years.

Discipline, restraint, traditional family values and religion are not popular among liberals, because they diminish the seductive and manipulative powers that femininity affords. However, manipulation, seduction and class envy are formidable weapons in the liberals' arsenal.

Do not underestimate to power of females' secret weapons of tears(victim hood), seduction(sexuality), and deception (little white lies with ends that justify their means). No man can stand up to these weapons, and this is why liberals and women have gained the upper hand. These negative aspects of femininity have to be clearly seen for what they are, if balance is to be restored. Only then can our culture be restored to the strength, prosperity and freedom that has made the US the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen.

Unfortunately, Republicans are also becoming feminized and becoming swallowed-up by today's feminized agenda. There is a vacuum in conservative leadership. Who is willing to speak the obvious but harsh truth? Just like in the fable:" The Emperors New Clothes", the cold hard truth can be dangerous and may not be popular at first. However, the only way to survive as a culture and a nation, is to place reason, discipline and courage, before emotions, seductions and deceptions.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Are Cutters, Gays, Drug Users and Those Who Sport Tattoos and Piercings, Displaying Symptoms of a Mental Disorder?

Today I was surprised to read about a new trend among today's troubled youth. It is called by mental health professionals "self-embedding disorder". This is the practice of embedding nails, paper clips, bits of rock, glass and even crayons in their bodies.

Read more about this new malady in an informative Reuters article entitled: "Self-Embedding Disorder: Teens Putting Nails, Paper Clips in Bodies, Study Finds"

An interesting quote from the above mentioned article is: "It is often kept secret, but some studies suggest that 13 to 24 percent of high school students in the U.S. and Canada have practiced deliberate self-injury at least once."

Many adults are completely unaware of this popular phenomenon among today's youth. That is because this is a new phenomenon, that was rare when today's middle aged population were growing up.

There are "clicks" among high school and college age kids called "emos". These kids are known for manic depressive behavior and self mutilation. They can be identified by their appearance which is described on this "how to be emo" website.

Some people might think that since the "emo lifestyle" affects such a large number of today's youths, that it is just a fad. Today's popular culture preaches that it is just a lifestyle choice and "emos" are just practicing their "freedom of expression". But I believe that the "emo lifestyle" is a cry for help from a large group of today's youth who suffer from a mental disorder.

I have personally know 2 women who have noticeable scars from self mutilation. Both dress like "emos". Both are bi-sexual/lesbians and one is extremely heavily tattooed and has multiple piercings in her face, abdomen, nipples and vagina. Both have been sexually abused as children and are drug addicted prostitutes. Many people believe that these behaviors are legitimate lifestyle choices. However, I believe all of the above mentioned behaviors are the symptoms of an underlying mental illness, rooted in they way that many of today's youth are raised.

Also, I was surprised to find that approximately one third of people who sport multiple tattoos say, that one of their main reasons for getting tattooed, is that they enjoy the pain of the tattooing possess. If you don't believe me, just ask them, and see if you get the same answers that I did. Other reasons for getting tattooed include: rebellion against parents who forbid tattoos, to look cool, tattoos are sexy, they say something about me, they are pretty, and they make me look tough.

I believe that extreme tattooing and piercing, homosexuality, drug abuse and self mutilation are all symptoms of mental disorders. I believe that most mental disorders originate from childhood experiences. I believe that mental illness is on the rise in today's America due to the disappearing intact family and the feminizing of our society as described in my article "The Feminizing of Society" .

Today's schools, universities, media and the arts encourage accepting and celebrating much of the above mentioned bizarre behaviors. As a result, even the "normal" youths of today, are confused and unable to distinguish normal and positive behavior from abnormal and unhealthy behavior.

Monday, December 1, 2008

eHarmony Was Bullied Into Submission By Homosexual Activists.

As I have written repeatedly, "when you accept and celebrate something that is abnormal and unhealthy, as if it were normal and positive, you turn reason and common sense on its head". An excellent example of this is a recent lawsuit and settlement by eHarmony.com . eHarmony, is an on-line Christian owned dating service, that was bullied into providing services for homosexual singles.

Michelle Malkin wrote in a recent article: "The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users".

E-Harmony obviously caved in due to the intimidation and bullying tactics that the gay activists have been using to influence businesses nationwide. As I have written in my previous article,"My Views on Homosexuality", this same tactic was used on the psychiatric profession, 40 years ago, in order to force them to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

The following is a comment on Malkin's article from a Prop. 8 supporter and an excellent rebuttal from a clear thinker.

eaglehaslanded said:
'This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services.'
No, actually it’s like a lunch counter in Mississippi refusing to serve a Black person.

On November 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am, NJ-Aviator said:
NO. You could not be MORE WRONG. You really need a review of logic.
This person was not refused a service that the business offered. This person demanded a service the business DID NOT OFFER.
Michelle’s analogy was spot on. Yours was off in space.
And that’s the problem with the left. No logic.

Here is the link to Malkin's entire article and comments page. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/20/eharmony-forced-to-offer-same-sex-dating-services/