Friday, May 4, 2012

A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists’ desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.

The proof is the term “gay marriage”. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to “redefine” the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.

 Most all Americans that I know, whether conservative or liberal, whether agnostic or religious, are not opposed to civil unions between consenting adults. Civil unions give gays all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage without re-defining the word “marriage”. Many states, including California, currently have civil unions available for gay couples. Unfortunately, gay activists reject civil unions for no logical reason what-so-ever. Their reason is emotional, not logical. Gay activists claim that only the word “marriage” would give them true equality. IMHO, this is absurd. The only objection that most Americans have to gay marriage is the redefinition of the WORD “marriage”. 

Therefore I suggest a reasonable compromise. Instead of re-defining the word marriage to include gays, we should create a new word to define gay marriage. I propose the word “garriage”. Gay couples can get “garried” while straight straight couples can get “married”. Many languages use different words for feminine and masculine genders. Some languages even assign genders for inanimate objects such as car or boat. In English we say him or her, he or she, count and countess, king and queen, etc. Since a gay union is technically different than straight union, there is no reason why we can’t use different words to define them. 

Unfortunately gay activists will not accept this compromise under the guise of equality because they are unwilling to accept the fact that they ARE different in significant ways when it comes to marriage. They will compare using different words to define different unions as “separate but equal” which was a term used for segregation of blacks. This excuse is a ridiculous as saying it is not fair to differentiate between apples and oranges, men and women, or whisky and rum. Traditional marriage, as it has been defined for 5,000 years, IS different than gay unions. A different word to define gay unions is appropriate and very reasonable.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Definition: bas•tard - noun - a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.

A very wise man by the name of name Martin Luther King said," Our world begins to end when we are silent about things that matter".

IMHO, the plight of bastards and their effect on our society matters. It is very appropriate to call attention to it on Fathers Day. There are good reasons why the word "bastard" has a negative connotation. Of course not all bastards suffer the shortcomings, moral deficiencies and mental disorders listed in the article below. Those exceptions are the "lucky bastards".

On Father's Day, here is some sobering information concerning dads. According to the U.S. Census, one-third of American children are growing up without their biological fathers, while 40% of newborn babies in the U.S. are delivered to unmarried mothers. This percentage has increased about ten-fold since 1950.
Even more sobering: According to the CDC, over 72% of black children in the U.S. are born out-of-wedlock, along with over 52% of Hispanic children. Thus, while accounting for only about one quarter of the total U.S. population, blacks and Hispanics account for about 57% of the total number of out-of-wedlock births.

The absence of dad is devastating for children in a wide variety of ways. Children from single-parent homes are twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school and are more than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 85% of children with behavioral disorders don't have a father at home.

Children living without dad are much more likely to abuse drugs, commit suicide, and run away from home. They are more likely to have lower academic achievement along with lower self-esteem. Children born to unwed mothers are about seven times more likely to live in poverty than children with fathers in the home. The correlation between fatherless homes and the negative effects on the family is irrefutable.

With statistics like these, which have been trending in this negative direction for decades, one would think that no matter a person's religion, political persuasions, etc., it would be clear to most that it benefits our culture to support traditional marriage.

Yet, in spite of all this, the left continues its march towards the destruction of the family. Led by the homosexual movement and its war on marriage, like-minded liberals in the media, the aiding and abetting by Democrats in Washington, and Feministas like Gloria Steinem (who once declared, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.") and NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd, author of "Are Men Necessary?" (which has been described as "the manifesto of the man-hating movement"), the varied attacks on the family are well funded, coordinated, and unrelenting.
read more:

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Wal-Mart Wins Ruling in Sex-Bias Case

In the largest sexual discrimination lawsuit ever, the Supreme Court sided with retail king Wal-Mart (WMT) on Monday, overturning a ruling that granted class-action status to female employees that had sought billions of dollars.
The unanimous decision, which was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, concerned the ability of 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees to team up to sue the world’s largest retailer for gender discrimination.

Read more:

Is there any downside to discrimination based on sex? I can't think of any. Nature abhors a vacuum, so does economics. If talented women are not reaching their potential at Walmart, wouldn't that give other companies the opportunity to scoop up these talented women? Doesn't this give those talented women the opportunity to open their own business and perhaps compete with Walmart? In the free market, the cream always rises to the top. This principle is easy to see in professional sports. The best athletes in the country play pro ball. The best actors/actresses get to be in the movies and TV. The most interesting authors write the best selling books. Discrimination, like diversity, is neither good nor bad in and of itself. If a restaurant will only serve men, that opens up a market for restaurants the serve women. In a market that is free from government interference, things will work out exactly as they should, but not necessarily equal.

For example, there are almost no female auto mechanics because women don't like, or are not talented, in that field of work. There are few Blacks in the NBA because the most talented basketball players are black. Most nail salons are owned and staffed by Asians because that is what they choose to do. The owners choose to hire their own kind. Most Chinese restaurants are owned and staffed by Chinese because the owners prefer Chines to work for them. Most cabs are driven by Arabs, because that is what they choose to do. This neither right nor wrong, this is exactly as things should be.

The government has no business demanding that private companies can not discriminate. Just as the government has no business forcing private companies to discriminate.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

What group is the most bullied among today's youth?

The root cause of this groups abnormalities have yet to be determined. However, most think that it is a combination of "nature" (genetics) and "nurture" (upbringing.)

Members of this group have a high suicide rate.

Members of this group are ridiculed because of their temptations and their behaviors.

Members of this group are mocked because of their appearance and their mannerisms.

Members of this group are often ostracized by other kids.

Members of this group are usually not asked to school proms and dances.

Members of this group are usually not chosen for sports teams.

Michelle Obama has singled out this group as unacceptable.

Michelle Obama speaks about the abnormal and unhealthy behaviors of this group.

Michelle Obama has called for members of this group to change their behavior.

Michelle Obama has proposed legislation that will force members of this group to change their behavior.

Who is this group? They are "fat people".

I read a great article from the American Thinker that points out the hypocrisy of Joy Behar and her strong anti-Christian beliefs. This article is definitely worth the read:

Friday, September 24, 2010

The unintended consequences of repealing "don't ask, don't tell".

Sexual preference is nobody's business. DADT is a way of allowing homosexuals to join the military without letting others know that they are gay precisely because it is no one's business. As long as they keep it to themselves, the military does not have to make special accommodations for them.

Previously, mental diseases, including homosexuality, were considered reasons to keep people out of the services. Gay activists successfully lobbied (intimidated) the psychiatric profession to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the 1960s. However, it was still impractical to house practicing homosexuals with straight men, just as it is impractical to house men with women. It is also impractical to house homosexual men with each-other under military circumstances. The Clinton administration came up with an ingenious solution to this conundrum. It was the DADT policy.

If DADT is repealed, the military will be forced to make special accommodations for homosexual men. That is the conundrum. That is also exactly what gay activists want. Gay activists are always seeking special accommodations. Under DADT they were treated equally. If DADT is repealed, they must be treated specially.

If DADT is repealed, gay activists will not be satisfied. They will seek all kinds of anti-bullying rules, sensitivity training, special counselors, rules that allow cross-dressing and using the wrong restrooms just like they do now in public schools.

Gay activists are not interested in equality. DADT provides equality. Repealing DADT requires special treatment and special accommodations for gays. If you don't believe me, just wait and see what happens if DADT is repealed.

If DADT is repealed, gay activists will begin by systematically bringing complaints of bullying and harassment, just like they did in the public schools. This will result in special counselors and special sensitivity training classes. There will be new special rules that affect all soldiers. For example, patting a comrade on his butt will become a crime. Using the word "fag" will be grounds for a dishonorable discharge. This will all be an enormous distraction from the military's prime objective which is winning wars.

If homosexuality is nobodies business, then the repeal of DADT should eliminate homosexual issues from the military. However, this is not what gay activists want. They want to shove homosexual behavior in our faces. They want everyone to know about their sexuality.

I guarantee that if DADT is repealed, homosexual issues will be brought to the forefront in the military, just as it has been in Massachusetts schools where marriage has been redefined to include homosexuals.

The military will be so overwhelmed by accommodating gay activists, that it will distract them from their primary purpose which is winning wars by killing our enemies and destroying things.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Is are college students getting there moneys wurth?

I think that high school students of the 60's were better educated than college students of today. According to this article, many of today's students are never taught literature, history, science, foreign language,economics, or how our government works.

They are taught African studies, women's studies diversity, hip-hop dance, sexual preferences, erotica, and many other "fluff" courses. The average education costs between one and two hundred thousand dollars. Most of it is payed by student loans and government grants. Are taxpayers and students getting their money's worth? Is it still cost effective to go to college or is it just an excuse to party for 4 more years before getting serious about your future? There are more counselors, student liaisons and managerial positions at today's colleges than ever before. Today's colleges have twice the number of non-teaching staff as they had 40 years ago. Why are government loans, grants, scholarships, parents and students paying for so much "fluff" and so little substance in today's universities?

Worst of all, colleges are teaching kids to be atheists. 70% of college students lose their faith in God during their college years. They are taught moral equivalencies rather than moral absolutes, that America is a racist and imperialist war mongering nation, that diversity in and of itself is a virtue, that Palestinians have moral supremacy over the Israelis, that Anthropogenic Global Global Warming is our greatest threat, that social justice trumps equal justice, That equal outcome trumps equal opportunity, and many other lies and distortions from the liberal left.

Today's college graduates are incapable independent thought and moral judgments because they have been brainwashed by liberal propaganda. Today's colleges are teaching their students the opposite of the founding principles of our nation. The inevitable result will be a nation that is unsustainable.

Colleges no longer provide a "rounded " education. If kids aren't getting a rounded education anyway, why are we paying for all the fluff. Why not teach them ONLY what they need for their careers.


Government-subsidized loans have injected money into higher education, as they did into housing, causing prices to balloon. But at some point people figure out they're not getting their money's worth, and the bubble bursts.

Some think this would be a good thing. My American Enterprise Institute colleague Charles Murray has called for the abolition of college for almost all students. Save it for genuine scholars, he says, and let others qualify for jobs by standardized national tests, as accountants already do.

"Is our students learning?" George W. Bush once asked, and the evidence for colleges points to no. The National Center for Education Statistics found that most college graduates are below proficiency in verbal and quantitative literacy. University of California scholars Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks report that students these days study an average of 14 hours a week, down from 24 hours in 1961.

The American Council of Alumni and Trustees concluded, after a survey of 714 colleges and universities, "by and large, higher education has abandoned a coherent content-rich general education curriculum."

They aren't taught the basics of literature, history or science. ACTA reports that most schools don't require a foreign language, hardly any require economics, American history and government "are badly neglected," and schools "have much to do" on math and science.

read more:

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Excerpts from the top 22 songs of the summer (and you thought Dr. Laura was out of line)

These are some of the lyrics that today's teenyboppers are listening to. When you see middle and high school kids getting off the school bus with I-pods in their ears, this is what they are listening to. The following are sample lines from this summers 22 most popular hits. Do their parents know what they listen to? Do their parents care what they listen to? Is this a sign of society in decline or is this representative of the natural evolution of an enlightened generation? (these lyrics are all from different hit songs of the summer)

On his first new single "Not Afraid," Eminem used six F-bombs and three S-words in four minutes. That includes an "F-you for Christmas," an "F the world" and an "F the universe." That doesn't include the bonus usages of countless other vulgarities.
"I just want her back / I know I'm a liar / If she ever tries to f---ing leave again / I'ma tie her to the bed and set the house on fire."
"Sex on the beach / We don't mind sand in our stilettos / We freak in my Jeep" ... "kiss her, touch her, squeeze her buns." "all that ass hangin' out," "watching the girls in "bikinis, tankinis, martinis, no weenies."
"Lips like licorice, tongue like candy / Excuse me, Miss, but can I get you out of your panties?"
"Instead of talking, let me demonstrate / Yeah / Get down to business, let's skip foreplay."
"Come here, rude boy, boy / Can you get it up? / Come here, rude boy, boy / Is you big enough?"
"give it to you harder"..."take it, take it, take it."
Here is the article from newsbusters:

IMHO, this is the result of fatherless homes, latchkey kids, divorce, day care kids, and the celebration and embracing of gangsters, single moms, sexual deviants, drugs, alcohol and violence which are the results of a secular society and moral relativism. Gee, it seems like Dr. Laura opposes all of these things. Isn't it Ironic that Dr. Laura is the one who got silenced because she highlighted the word "nigger" while she was condemning its use? In today's upside-down world, you must walk on eggshells if you stand for traditional American-Christian values, otherwise, anything is fair-game.

Here is the link to the segment that got Dr Laura fired:

Monday, August 16, 2010

Diversity Is An Obstacle, Not A Strength

I can think of many examples of how diversity has led to obstacles that America has overcome. However, I am unaware of how diversity, in and of itself, has been a strength.

In the beginning of American History there were lots of clashes between different denominations of Christians. America needed to unite to gain independence and freedom from the British. Our forefathers united around their common (not diverse) belief that our freedoms and inalienable rights are granted by God, not government. We overcame all obstacles with our common beliefs as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the US constitution.

America's slogan that is stamped on all coins states: "E Pluribus Unum" which means "out of many, one". This means that we get our strength from the unique American culture, not from diversity.

The cultural differences between the North and South led to the bloodiest war that this nation has ever endured. It cost 750,000 lives to overcome this obstacle and to reunite America.

Diversity of race led to Jim Crow laws, discrimination and cruelty against blacks by whites. We overcame this obstacle with the civil rights movement.

In today's America, businesses and government spend billions of dollars on diversity sensitivity programs. These programs are intended to overcome obstacles caused by racial, religious, sexual and cultural diversity.

Congress has enacted hate-crime laws in an effort to reduce crimes that are caused by diverse groups clashing with each-other.

The previous examples prove that overcoming obstacles caused by diversity has cost America hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It has all been done for just causes and America could not have survived if we had not overcome these obstacles. However, these Obstacles are the result of diversity. If there was no diversity, these obstacles would not have existed. Diversity has been an obstacle, not a strength.

On the other hand I can think of no example of how diversity, in and of itself, has benefited America besides adding variety to food, music, and the arts from diverse cultures. Of course people from diverse racial, cultural religious and sexual backgrounds have contributed greatly to America, but this is not due to their diversity, this is due to their individual achievements. Humans of all races, religions, cultures and sexes have the same potential for greatness. No one group has more potential than another. Mixing groups together does not add to, nor diminish each individuals potential for greatness. Humans of all races, religions and cultures are equally endowed by God.

It is horrible when diverse groups can't live, work, play and worship together. Many obstacles had to be overcome to achieve tolerance in America. Tolerance is a very, very good thing, but it is only required BECAUSE of diversity. Diversity, in and of itself is not a virtue. Tolerance IS a virtue.

Most liberals preach that "diversity is our strength". That statement is a lie. Tolerance is a strength, diversity is an obstacle. Many cultures have achieved greatness without diversity. Japan, Finland and Switzerland are three examples.

Diversity is a challenge that America has overcome. America has not become great because of diversity, we have become great in spite of diversity.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Intellectuals and bureaucracies are ineffective. Why not use the free market approach to clean up the oil spill?

This parody video accurately depicts how intellectuals and government bureaucracies handle problems. The solution to the oil spill clean up lies in the free markets.

Before the spill had happened, shrimp boats went out every day. They were motivated to catch shrimp because they Knew they could sell their catch for 4$ per pound.

Why not pay anyone $4 for each pound oil collected oil the gulf? This will surely motivate all available boats into action. This will surely motivate all types of innovation in efficiently and effectively collecting oil from the gulf.

Homeless people and jobless people would be scouring the beaches and the marshes collecting tar balls instead of aluminum cans.

I have seen many solutions offered, such as hay to soak up the oil and membranes to filter it. BP and the federal government has rejected these solutions.

Why not let capitalism find the moist effective way to clean up the oil spill?

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the Only Reasonable Choice for the U.S. Military

Gay Activists Will Not Stop Their Demands Once DADT is Repealed, Instead, They Will Insist on the Most Bizarre Accommodations

Homosexuals are currently welcome to serve their country in the military under DADT. Wikipedia claims that 65,000 gays are currently serving honorably in the U.S. military. Repealing DADT won't change that, it will just give the nutty gay activists an excuse to demand bizarre accommodations for various sexual preferences in the military. The result will be a military force that is distracted from its mission and focused on accommodating various gender preferences to their satisfaction.

If DADT is repealed, where will the admittedly gay men sleep and shower? With the men, with the women, with other gay men or with other gay men and gay women?

How about the bisexuals? What arrangements should be made for them?

Do you think that the straight men and women should sleep in the same barracks and share the same showers?

What about the transgendered men? Will they be wearing woman's uniforms or would they be forced to deny their gender preference and wear men's clothing? After all, LGBT stands for" Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered".

Should women serve in combat situations alongside men? Should transgendered women, who identify as men, serve in combat situations with men? Should transgendered men, who identify as women, be excused from combat situations?

This whole thing about "gender preferences" raises many questions. It gets very weird when you allow people to declare their own gender independent of their physiology. Yet that is exactly what the LGBT crowd is demanding.

What if a straight man or woman decides that they are now bi-sexual or gay after experimenting and hooking up. What if a straight man suddenly decides that he is really a woman trapped in a man's body. Should they be allowed to change their dress, sleeping and showering arrangements? Should a woman who claims to be trapped in a man's body be allowed to go swimming without a swim top? Should the entire military change over to "uni-sex" uniforms? Should men be required to wear swim tops to keep things equal?

You see, it's not so simple. The military needs to figure out rules for all circumstances. Rules are important for discipline and unit cohesion. This is why the military chiefs need some time to sort things out before repealing DADT.

The gay activists are nutty. They already use "gay marriage" to force the "LGBT" agenda into public schools and the workplace. Their main objective is to raise a ruckus and to mock societal norms. They will insist on the most bizarre accommodations. They will not stop their demands once DADT is repealed. Instead, they will ramp up their demands. Most likely the military chiefs will go along with their bizarre demands for fear of being labeled as bigoted, hateful and homophobic. All of this distracts from the main purpose of the military which is to keep America safe. The result will be a military force that is distracted from its mission and focused on accommodating various gender preferences to their satisfaction.

Friday, May 28, 2010

John Brennan, Obama's Counter-terrorism Advisor, Calls Jihad "Legitimate Tenet of Islam"

Obama's counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, justifies Islmic Jihad as a legitimate tenet of Islam. Here is the video clip:

By definition, supporters of Jihad are traitors, bigots, homophobes, sexists and haters. here is a link to a related article:

Jihadists are no better than Nazis. This is the equivalent of having a Nazi in the White house.

This is another in the long line of radical advisers in the white house. The White House is full of Communists, sex perverts, Marxists, socialists, Maoists, radical revolutionaries, and now Jihadist sympathisers. This is not an accident. The president appointed these radicals because they reflect his views. Obama is the equivalent of a Nazi sympathizer. Obama is a bigot of the worst kind. Obama is a traitor to his country. Obama needs to be impeached and tried for treason. Here is a link to a synopsis of Obama's radical associates and advisers:

Does the American public know what Jihad is? I understand that the radical left, will find a way to justify Jihadism.

Jihadism is a holy war waged by Muslims against infidels. Jihad is the means that Muslims intend to convert or kill all non-Muslims on planet Earth.

Jihad will institute Sharia law which criminalizes homosexual behavior which is punishable by death in some cases. Sharia law calls for the genital mutilation of women. Sharia law calls for women to be subservient to me. Sharia law calls for arranged marriages between old men any underage girls.

Mainstream Islam, which calls for Sharia law, is not compatible with American culture. We must denounce Jihad, Sharia law and the Muslim culture loudly and strongly.

Apologists for Jihad must stigmatized and shammed just as Nazis and racists are. Jihad is the worst form of bigotry on planet Earth.

Jihad and Sharia law is worse than racism, it is worse than slavery it is equal to Nazi-ism. It is an abomination.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Liberals Versus Conservatives: Six opposing core beliefs

Most of my long and passionate debates with liberals usually wind up at a stand-off after we have both reduced a complicated topic down to its basic core. At this point, further discussion would be useless, we must "agree to disagree" because we are both steadfast in our core beliefs.

As a result of many discussions with liberals, I have identified the following six opposing core beliefs.

1) Liberals tend to trust government more than business.
Conservatives tend to trust business more than government.

2) Liberals believe in collectivism.
Conservatives believe in individualism.

3) Liberals are intolerant of certain beliefs.
Conservatives are judgmental of certain behaviors.

4) Liberals tend to believe in moral relativism.
Conservatives tend to believe in moral absolutes.

5) Liberals believe that society can, and must be, perfected.
Conservatives believe that there will always be a struggle between "good and evil".

6) Liberals tend to be guided more by their emotions.
Conservatives tend to be guided more by reason.

Friday, May 21, 2010

SEIU Organizes An Angry Mob To Descend On A Banker's Suburban Home

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which has close ties to the Obama administration, organized 14 busloads of protesters to descend on the home of bank executive Greg Baer.

The media was not notified of this event because it  was not not intended to publicize their grievances, it was ment to intimidate and control  bank executives.

It just so happens that a columnist from Fortune Magazine, Nina Easton, lives next store and witnessed the mayhem. Easton wrote an article about this event called "What's really behind SEIU's Bank of America protests?" Here is the link to her article:

Yesterday, Glenn Beck  reported this story. Beck played up the human angle of the courageous father who walked through the angry mob alone to rescue his son. That part brought a tear to my eyes. It reminded me of this song lyric from "Impossible Dream" - "To be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause"

This truly was an angry mob. The police refused to enforce trespassing laws because they were afraid of inciting the mob. By contrast, all "tea party rallies" are peaceful and pleasant rallies that are mischaracterized by the media as angry mobs.

Beck also said that Nina Easton, is now the target of threats and harassment herself because she dared to report on this incident. According to Beck, she is the only reporter that dared to write about it, the rest either sympathized with SEIU or were scared off..

I have never seen ordinary people being harassed by government henchmen to this extent in my entire life. We are not living in normal times. It must have been like this just when any tyrant is gaining power. By the time most people wake up, it is too late.

Beck is trying his hardest to expose what is happening. He is on the front lines. I fear for Glenn Beck's life.

I hope everyone reads the link to Nina Easton's article. It is eye-opening.

This is one of the worst cases of  political intimidation in recent times. Why is the Mainstream media ignoring it? This is another example of how liberals use intimidation and demonization to silence and control their opponents.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists bankers , and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist banker .

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews Israelis ,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew Israeli .

THEN THEY CAME for trade unionists FOX News, Talk Radio, and the Internet , and I didn't speak up because I wasn't trade unionist Fox News, Talk Radio and the Internet .

and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Capitalism Vs. Socialism

America offers opportunity to all. We do not live in a fixed class structure. The working poor have opportunity to succeed. There are more millionaires in America today than ever before. Most of today’s millionaire started out poor.

Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Clarance Thomas and Barack Obama are five examples of poor people who became rich. There are millions others just like them. They stared off poor and they rose to fame and fortune through talent, hard work and endless determination. Capitalism offers this same opportunity to everyone.

Glenn Beck employs over 50 people directly. These are all well paying jobs. Many of Beck’s employees earn over $100,000. They all have Cadillac health care plans. Glenn Beck donates 10% of his income to private charities that he chooses. I estimate that would come to 1 million dollars per year. Many wealthy Christians donate to charity anonymously, which means that they do not take a tax deduction on their charitable giving.

When someone succeeds through capitalism, his efforts add to the wealth of other people and our nation. He creates jobs and opportunities in his business. When he spends money, he creates demand for goods and services which create more jobs and more opportunity. The economy grows with each person who achieves success.

Socialism does not produce wealth, Socialism does not create opportunity nor employment. Socialism redistributes wealth, it is a zero sum gain. It takes from one person and gives to another. Nothing is created, the economy does not grow, it stagnates and shrinks due to lost motivation. Capitalism creates wealth and motivates individuals to succeed, socialism redistributes existing wealth and saps future motivation.

I believe that America offers equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

However, socialist entitlements and welfare sap motivation and trap generations in a never ending cycle of dependence. Socialism enslaves people with government hand-outs and creates class envy.

Capitalism offers the freedom to succeed or fail by the merit of your own efforts. More people succeed under capitalism. As they reach for the stars they create new medicines and technologies that benefit the entire world. Capitalism has saved more lives through advanced farming techniques, advanced medical techniques, etc.

Even poor people do better under capitalism because capitalism creates abundance while socialism creates shortages.

Capitalism is a tide that raises all boats.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Nancy Pelosi Calls For Catholic Church Leaders to Work With Government On The Amnesty Issue

Liberals have been perverting the original intent of "separation of church and state" for years. The original intent was not to prohibit prayer in public schools. As a matter of fact, the Congressional printing office printed bibles to be used in public schools. The original intent was not to keep religion out of the public square. There are numerous biblical references in public buildings, courthouses and national monuments that are engraved in stone. The original intent was not to keep religion out of "official government business". Politicians and witnesses in court place their hand on a bible and swear oaths to God, our creator.

The phrase "separation of church and state" was derived from this clause in the first amendment of the US constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This clause was intended to limit the power of the federal government. This clause was intended to keep Government from collaborating with churches. This clause was a safeguard against the US becoming a theocracy where Government and State act as one.

Today, Nancy Pelosi was reported as saying the following in a speech to Catholic leaders:

I would hope that there’s one thing that we can do working together as we go forward that speaks to what the Bible tells us about the dignity and worth of every person — and that is on the subject of immigration,” Pelosi said in her remarks. “Because I think the Church is going to have to play a very major role in how we, in how people are treated.”

Pelosi is influencing religious leaders. She is suggesting that religious leaders "work together" with government leaders. This is a violation of our constitution's first amendment. IMHO, this is an impeachable offense. House leader Nancy Pelosi is third in line to the Presidency. She is only 2 heartbeats away from becoming president herself. She has violated her sacred oath (to God) to uphold the constitution of the US. She needs to be impeached.

Wake up America, our lawmakers are not following the US constitution in a big way and no one is paying attention.

Here is a link to a related article:

IMHO, government funds should not be used to support Churches (faith based initiatives). Church money should not be used to support government. This can only result in undue influence. Pelosi is using her powerful position as speaker of the house to influence and pressure religious leaders. This is unconstitutional.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Leading Gay Activst Frank Kameny Says: "Bestiality OK 'as Long as the Animal Doesn't Mind"

I wrote this article to illustrate the absurdity of arguments and tactics used by the gay agenda. The following arguments may seem bizarre to you, however, these are the same arguments that gay activists use to justify the normalization of homosexuality through gay marriage.

The following is an excerpt from an article from

Frank Kameny — the "gay" pioneer revered by homosexual activists for his role in pressuring the American Psychiatric Association to effectively reclassify homosexuals as normal — now says that sex with animals is OK "as long as the animal doesn't mind.".......
 ........Kameny wrote: If bestiality with consenting animals provides happiness to some people, let them pursue their happiness......
......Kameny wrote: The term "sexual perversion" is devoid of objective meaning.... Dr. Thomas Szasz aptly and correctly defined "sexual perversion" as: "Any sexual practice disapproved of by the speaker.".......

......Last year, Kameny — a leader in the pressure campaign to declassify homosexuality as a psychiatric mental disorder — was honored by the Smithsonian Institution. His 1965 protest signs (and button with the "Gay Is Good" slogan he coined) will be displayed at the National Museum of American History, and his papers will be archived at the Library of Congress.

Here is the link to the entire article:

The above article confirms that there was substantial pressure, during the 60's and 70's, on the psychiatric profession to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. This is significant because it was gay activists, not trained psychiatrists, that brought this pressure to bear which resulted in declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder.

The same man who was instrumental in "normalizing" homosexuality", Frank Kameny, is now advocating for the normalization of bestiality. Maybe we should re-think decisions made based on pressure groups organized by this man.

A mind that alters, alters all.
The following excerpts are from an article entitled: "Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement"
Being a "zoophile" in modern American society, Beck says, is "like being gay in the 1950s. You feel like you have to hide, that if you say it out loud, people will look at you like a freak."......"What's the point of living if we have to hide who we are?"

Now Beck believes he and other members of this minority sexual orientation, who often call themselves "zoos," can follow the same path as the gay rights movement. Most researchers believe 2 to 8 percent of the population harbors forbidden desires toward animals, and Beck hopes this minority group can begin appealing to the open-minded for acceptance.......

.......The internet also makes zoophiles accessible for the first time. They can be found in chatrooms, through websites that advocate their cause, and virtual-reality meetups.

As this group gains confidence, zoophiles figure to be more open and then more outspoken in their demands for personal liberty and against discrimination. Improbable as it may seem, zoophiles might yet prove the new frontier in the battle for sexual civil rights

As cave drawings will attest, there's a carnal desire in some humans to lie with beasts. And though many civilizations have tried, none has been able to eradicate it, much to the frustration of organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States........

......By introducing bills that bring more formal punishment, policymakers have triggered a debate they might not have anticipated: the question of whether bestiality belongs with pedophilia as they assume or whether some acts of humans having sex with animals are victimless......

Here is the link to the entire article:

These arguments may seem bizarre to you, however, these are the same arguments that gay activists use to justify the normalization of homosexuality through gay marriage.

In reality, I believe that the normalization of sexual relationships between species is just as absurd as the normalization of sexual relationships between same sex couples though gay marriage.

I wrote this comment to illustrate the absurdity of arguments and tactics used by the gay agenda. No offense was intended.

Friday, May 7, 2010

A recent poll shows that 0 % of British Muslims thought that homosexuality was morally acceptable

Are all most British Muslims intolerant? Here The a link to an article that explains the finding of a new poll taken by Gallup and the Coexist Foundation:

Here is an except from the article:
Not a single British Muslim said homosexuality was morally acceptable, compared to 58 per cent of the general public who believed it was. In other European countries with large Muslim populations such as France
and Germany, the difference was far less pronounced: more than a third of French Muslims said they did not have a problem with homosexuality.

Does this mean that most all British Muslims are intolerant or is there some other explanation?

Liberals and atheists often discredit Christianity because of it's views on homosexuality. However, they never attack Muslim views despite their much more extreme nature.

For example, according to an article entitled "Liberal gays are scared to tell the truth about Muslim homophobia": A recent survey by Policy Exchange had showed that 72 per cent of young Muslim men thought that homosexuality should be recriminalised.

Here is the link:

My point is that I don't understand why the MSM, the universities and the popular culture are unfairly demonizing Christians and Arizona cops as bigots and homophobes, while ignoring the biggest homophobes of all, the Muslims.

This intolerance is not confined to the violent extremists who commit terrorist attacks and suicide bombings. These statistics include the "good" Muslims who go to work everyday and raise their families. It seems that Islam is truly a religion that practices intolerance.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

CO2 is NOT a Pollutant; Seeing is Believing

Watch this amazing time lapse video that shows the growth of two identical plants over 42 days. One is grown at normal atmospheric CO2 levels, the other is grown in a dramatically elevated level of CO2. The results are remarkable.

The plant grown in the high levels of CO2 grows faster, bigger and healthier than the plant grown in normal levels of CO2.

I have been writing for years that CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants use CO2 to produce food and oxygen that is required for all animal and human life on earth.

Warmer temperatures and higher levels of CO2 are beneficial to plants, animals and human society. Plants and potential farmland increase and more land becomes hospitable to human, plant and animal life when Earths climate becomes warmer and CO2 increases. On the other hand, lower temperatures and lower levels of co2 limit the plant and animal life that the Earth can sustain by humans and livestock.

Here is a link to an article that I wrote nearly 2 years ago entitled: "The Global Warming Myth Revisited":

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Is Obama An Evil Tyrant?

What if our president is truly evil and does want to destroy America as we know it. It wouldn't be the first time. This happened in Nazi Germany. This happened in Communist Cuba. This happened in Fascist Italy. This happened in Communist China. This is currently happening in Venezuela.

The tyrannical leaders of these regimes gained power by convincing regular people, politicians, intellectuals and the press that they were benevolent leaders that were for the common person. Good people were fooled by their slick "public relations campaign" .By the time they gained power, it was too late. The tyrant had the power to kill, terrorize or imprison his opposition. I fear that is what is happening in our country right now.

This past week there was a demonstration at the gate to the White House. Six people, who were protesting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, chained themselves to the White House gate. Before arrests were made, The White House Park Police closed the area to the press and spectators. The willing press retreated and did not show footage of the protesters and the arrest on the mainstream media. The only ones to cover this was FOX news, talk radio and blogs. The white house is now demonizing FOX News, talk radio and the Internet. Obama is attempting to control all information. The major TV networks and most newspapers are already loyal to Obama. The MSM is falsely demonizing tea partiers as racists, and violent extremists. The Administration is controlling the media. This is always the first step in taking over a nation. This is what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. Here is a link to the story about the White House protesters from Politico with a truly frightening video embedded:

I am growing tired of providing examples of Marxists, communists, Maoists and revolutionaries in the Obama Administration and among the people who were most influential in his life.

I am terrified at what is happening to our country at this time. I am trying to open as many eyes as possible before it is too late. I am not an isolated kook. A growing potion of America's population is waking up to this reality. About 25% agree with me according to recent estimates.

Glenn Beck seems to be the most informative investigative journalist. Beck has a non-stop research team that is constantly uncovering the hidden truths about those in power. Beck is doing a great job of educating the public about American history, past and present. For this reason, he has become the biggest target of the Obama administration and the MSM. I recommend watching Glenn Beck for those who truly want to be informed whether you are liberal or conservative. The truth does not take sides. I beleive that Beck is impartial and has no ulterior motives. He is only interested in uncovering the truth, serving God, his country and his family.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Make Fun Of Muhammad (The Islamic Prophet) With Jokes And Show Some True Courage:

This week Comedy Central censored much of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group. I came across an article about the recent censorship of the South Park "Muhammad" episode. It went on to say "Courage is rare and it deserves to be rewarded." I was intrigued.

Here is the link to the entire article:

After reading the article I was disgusted to learn what this cowardly wuss considers courage to be.

His advise was to:
1) Watch South Park and support its sponsors.
2) Sign an online "anti-death-threat petition"
3) Declare that the uncensored version of South Park be televised
4) Tell Muslims to read a book that advises them to stand up to terrorists

I don't want to watch South Park or go out of my way to support its sponsors. They are cowardly wusses for caving in to terrorist threats. I suggest that we boycott South Park to punish them for appeasing terrorists.

I have a different idea that displays true courage. Lets inundate the Internet with jokes about Muhammad. I think that dirty, gay jokes would be a good place to start.

It's too bad that we can't do this in solidarity with South Park, maybe they will grow some gonads and do it in solidarity with us.

Feel free to copy and past this post on every blog that you know. Have the courage to post this on your own blog. Please add more Muhammad jokes.

Wanna hear a dirty joke? Muhammad falls into the mud
Wanna hear a clean joke? He takes a bath with bubbles
Wanna hear a dirty joke? Bubbles is Micheal Jackson.

Q. Why doesn't Muhammad use toilet paper?
A. Because he's finger licking good!

What does a gay Muhammad and an ambulance have in common?
They both get loaded from the rear and go whoo-whoo!

Muhammad was not born gay. He was sucked into it.
I know that my jokes are pretty lame. (lol) Please help me come up with some good ones.


It seems that I am not the only one with this idea. Here is an excerpt from an article that suggests we all post satirical depictions of Muhammad on May 5, 2110. Here is the link:

Here is an excerpt:

If each threat produces more blasphemers than it silences, then threats suddenly become counterproductive. Or at least, they do to rational minds. (A flaw in the theory?)
We came up with the same idea independently. It seems that great minds think alike.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Women, Minorities and Gays Are Unfairly Targeted By Syphilis, Chlamydia and Gonorrhea

Here is an excerpt from an article in today's Miami Herald:

• Syphilis up 53 percent, from 204 reported cases in 2006 to 313 cases in 2009, with 73 percent of such cases in men who self-identify as men who have sex with men.

• Chlamydia up 64 percent, from 5,069 to 8,330 cases, with 71 percent of cases among women, mostly between 15 and 24 years of age.

• Gonorrhea up 24 percent, from 1,892 to 2,350 cases, with African Americans and Hispanics several times as likely to be infected as non-Hispanic whites.

Here is the link to the entire article:

When I saw this article, it reminded me of an article that I read in an Iowa newspaper several years ago. That article made the point that black high school students were disproportionately targeted for suspensions and expulsions. That article went on to blame racism for this disparity, despite the fact that most suspensions and expulsions were for carrying weapons, committing violence and for drug crimes. The evidence was not in dispute. I was suprised to learn that criminal behavior could infect a specific race, just like I am surprised to learn today that STDs are very sexist, racist and homophobic when choosing their victims.

Obviously individual behaviors are responsible for these disparities, not racism, sexism and homophobia. Those who falsely make charges of bigotry, are bigots themselves and should be stigmatized just as strongly as true bigots are. The consequences of false charges of racism can be very severe. The principals in Iowa schools could lose their job because of false charges of racism. Also the students and teachers could be victims of violent crimes if the principal fails to act because of the fear of false charges of racism.

Why are we including race in statistical studies? Race is irrelevant if we are striving toward a color-blind society. Martin Luther King said that all people should be judged by their character [as manifested in their behavior]. People should not be categorized by their race, sex or sexual preference. We should be judged solely by our behavior. After all, isn't that what STDs really do?

Monday, April 19, 2010

Conservatives And Liberals Have Different Values

During my lengthy discussions with liberals, I have gained insight into the different core beliefs that are the "crux" of our disagreements. The following is an example of one core belief that separates liberals from conservatives.

Liberals believe that there are no moral absolutes. Liberals beleive that it is up to each individual to come up with a "moral code" that is right for him and his situation. For example: Liberals will justify stealing food if their family is hungry.

On the other hand, myself (and most conservatives) believe that there are moral absolutes (universal spiritual principles)that are just as relevant today as they were 5000 years ago. Morality does not change through time and circumstance. Conservatives believe that it is honorable to strive toward these spiritual ideals although we are incapable of fully reaching them. However, spiritual progress, not perfection can be achieved during our lifetime..

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Enforcing Strict Immigration Laws Is The Most Humane Answer For The Immigration Problem

For the past 30 years, the US has absorbed more illegal aliens than we can safely handle. According to many estimates, over 20 million illegal aliens live in America. The following analogy compares America's immigration problem, to a lifeboat in the ocean.

The US is like a life boat in the ocean with more people clamouring to get aboard than the lifeboat can safely handle. All life boats have an maximum occupancy limit. For example, let's say that a life boat has a safe limit of 35 passengers. If the life-boat is carrying 25 passengers and there are many more people flailing about in the water, they have an obligation to save as many as they can. The people in the boat agree to pick up 10 more passengers. Now they have reached the limit that their boat can safely handle, however, there are still many more people in the water who will surely die if they don't get out of the water soon. The people in the life boat are humanitarians and desperately want to help the victims in the water. They decide that they can risk picking up another 10 people. If the waves are not to choppy, and the wind remains calm and they all sit very still while waiting to be rescued, they have a good chance of all 45 people aboard surviving.

However, there are still more people in the water who will surely die without assistance. Most of the people aboard the lifeboat are afraid that the boat will capsize and they will all drown if they let any more people aboard.

Their is a crowd in the water that is swimming toward the life boat trying to save themselves. Some people aboard the life boat take pity on them and convince the others that they have room for 5 more passengers. Being humanitarians, they agreed to let 5 more people on board, but no more because that would mean that would be way too risky.

The lifeboat heads toward the crowd of remaining victims in the water. The boat was rushed by dozens of victims that were clamoring to get an board. In the process, the boat capsized and everyone fell into the water and died of exposure long before a rescue team arrived.

This disaster could have been avoided if the survivors in the lifeboat knew where to draw the line. They could have saved themselves and saved many others if they knew when cut off assistance that they were not capable of delivering.

Likewise, America can not absorb every economic, political, medical and criminal refugee in the world. If we do not draw a line and set a limit, we will be overwhelmed by desperate people trying to survive and we will all go down together. Being a TRUE humanitarian means knowing where to set reasonable limits and to protect ourselves first, so that we can be in a position to provide assistance to some, but not all that are clamoring for help.

Illegal immigration puts a huge toll on America's social services, public schools, health care system, legal system, court system, penal system and economy.

Regulated immigration allows us to limit the number of people coming in and screen them for criminal backgrounds, disease and for mental disorders. This can only be accomplished by actively punishing and deporting all illegal aliens. We must be humanitarian enough to limit the numbers of people we let in. We must also screen people out who are likely to be an excessive drain on our system. This way we can help the maximum number of refugees while still maintaining America's ability to sustain itself economically and politically. Tough decisions must be made. If we don't exercise restraint on our humanitarian efforts, America will become just as impoverished, corrupt and lawless as the nations that the refugees are fleeing. At that point we will be unable to keep America afloat, let alone help refugees that are clamouring to get aboard the lifeboat called the USA.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Societal Progress is Cyclical and Repetitive, Scarcity and Oppression Will Surely Follow

Modern Christianity undoubtedly has a positive role in today's world and in American culture. It upsets me when I see Christianity mocked and demonized by people who would rather exempt themselves from Christian values. IMHO, Christian values are universal spiritual principles. IMHO, Christian values were indispensable in the formation of the US which led us to become the freest, wealthiest, most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. IMHO, our nation is in decline because we are straying from the Christian values that this nation was founded upon.

I believe that societal progress is not evolutionary, it is cyclical and repetitive. We (the human race) can never improve our humanity as a whole over time, in the long run here on Earth. The human race is NOT perfectible. We (as a people)never learn. God made us flawed. God gave us free will. We all struggle with the good and evil inclinations within each of us. This is just the way it is. History repeats itself.

We may have more stuff and more liberties now, but times of plenty and times of famine have always been a cyclical part of human history. Scarcity and oppression will surely follow. Individuals have the same strengths and weaknesses as we did during biblical times. History repeats itself. The human soul faces the same challenges today as it always has. The human condition has been a constant since biblical times.

However, I believe that each one of us has constant and ongoing internal struggles with good versus evil. This is permanent part of human nature. Successive generations will never improve human nature. History proves this to be true.

Never-the-less, I believe that we can advance our eternal soul if we make the right choices when we are challenged. Human existence constantly tests and challenges us all. Rich and poor, healthy and sickly, privileged and oppressed are all challenged spiritually. We all have free will. Even a slave has free will. Our choices in this lifetime will determine how our soul progresses spiritually in the next existence.

Perhaps those that have the least advantage in this life, find it easier to make righteous decisions. Perhaps they are positioned to have less difficulty making the right choices in this life, which will progress their soul in the next. This is why we should never pity those who appear less fortunate than us or be envious of those who appear more fortunate. We all have different challenges. Perhaps, in the long run, those who have it hardest on Earth are better off than those who are more comfortable, happy and privileged.

Spiritual progress in my personal yardstick for success in this lifetime. For some people, perhaps myself, not being evil is the best we can do much of the time.

These are my personal beliefs.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Jewish Identity Was Very Important To Non-Religious Jews, Even During The Holocaust, But Not In Today's Popular Culture

I will copy part of an actual E-Mail that I received today from my cousin in Israel:

Hi Gary,
Happy Passover! We're still reminiscing over our amazing seder last Passover and how great it was to have everyone here. This year was much quieter. One of [my husband's] friends came, which definitely made it more celebratory. He is the child of Holocaust survivors and during the seder he suddenly remembered his mother telling him years ago that when she was in the camps, the Jewish prisoners figured out it was Passover and decided not to eat any bread. To punish them for this act of Jewish identity, the Nazis said that if they weren't eating bread, then they clearly weren't hungry, so they didn't need any other food either. [Passover lasts 7 days] Despite this, his mother said that it was that important to her, even though she didn't come from a religious background, to not eat bread, and that even though they were starving, she felt much stronger that week.
When I was in Israel, a year ago, I learned that Judaism is a nationality, not a religion. Many Jews in Israel are non-religious, yet their Judaism was very important to them. Jews feel a kinship toward Jews in all nations. This is why Israel is so important to the Jewish people. No matter where you live, if you are Jewish, Israel is your homeland. This is why Zionism is an important part of Israel's culture. The Jewish people were scattered throughout the world because of persecution. Many Jews lost their religion, but  most retained their Jewish identity through custom and marriage. Zionism is an effort to repatriate the scattered Jews of the world to their homeland, Israel.

Zionism in Israel does not exclude Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians or any other people. Arabs live, work and worship freely amongst the Jews in Israel.

My cousin, who wrote me this E-mail, and her husband are American Born, we grew up together. They moved to Israel 20 years ago to return to their "Homeland" and start their own Jewish family.

Unfortunately, the identity of Western Jews is being destroyed, not by Arabs, Muslims nor Palestinians, but by  Western popular culture and intermarriage. Our traditions are being lost in this new generation because many of  today's young  Jews are more concerned with today's popular culture,  than with their Jewish Identity.

I never knew why, but I always considered it very wrong for a Jew to date or marry a gentile. Now I know why. 

This article is not about politics, it is about a culture that has existed for 5,000 years under persecution and under all forms of repressive governments.  No government has had the power to destroy Judaism or weaken the Jewish spirit, not the ancient Egyptians, nor the 20th century Nazis. However, I feel that the biggest threat to Judaism is today's cultural revolution. The Jewish culture will be doomed when when the popular culture trumps the Jewish culture and sexual identity trumps Jewish identity. I saw signs of today's popular culture taking hold in Today's Israel. This was very disheartening to see.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Obama's New Health-Care Bill Does Not Fund More Health-Care, It Only Funds New Bureaucrats

The health care bill supplies funding for 16,500 new IRS agents to enforce the penalties on people who do not buy health care. Also, it provides funding for thousands of new bureaucrats in 159 new government agencies to implement the new regulations.

These expenditures do not create any more doctors, clinics, labs, medicines and diagnostic equipment.

If we still have the same supply of medical resources, and they add 30 million more patients into the system, then each person who is currently insured will receive less care. Thus, rationing and death panels will be more widespread under this new system.

True health care reform would increase the medical resources, not the bureaucracy. If we used that money to build new hospitals, medical facilities and to pay the salaries of doctors, nurses, lab technicians, or to provide education and training for new health-care providers, then the quality and quantity of health-care would increase. This would inevitably lead to more access to better health care.

This legislation will definitely result in growing the size and scope of the federal government. However, this legislation does not increase the size and scope of the medical industry. I challenge any supporters of this bill to tell me where I am wrong.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Moviegoer Stabbed After Asking Woman to Silence Her Phone

Here is a link to the comments on an article that describes an incident in which a man was stabbed in his neck, with a meat thermometer, because he asked a woman to turn off her cell phone in a movie theater.
(Click on "Full story: WJW Fox 8 Cleveland" to read the entire article.)

You would find the comments on the original page most interesting.

Judging by the disparity between the comments (in my first link) and typical behavior, I have concluded that most people tolerate rude, inconsiderate, obnoxious and offensive public behavior because they don't want to cause a scene or they are afraid of the consequences. They just want to get on with their day.

Most people who practice inconsiderate public behavior will loudly insult you, threaten you and cuss you out, at the very least, if you politely ask them to refrain from such behavior. These type of people thrive on drawing attention to themselves, especially negative attention.

Don't dismiss the first comment as being racist. [ "Let me guess they where black...No respect for the people around them."]

Have you ever been to a mostly black movie theater? The audience is constantly yelling out comments at the screen, often vulgar, and talking to each other. As a rule, black people are very loud and obnoxious at movie theaters. This conclusion is based on my personal experience, not racism.

IMHO this is because today's crop of black folks are mostly born to unwed mothers. Single mothers have less opportunity and/or desire to dicipline and control their children. I have often seen children as young as 6 years old unsupervised and running wild in the streets of black ghettos. IMHO, when you are devoid of parental control at an early age, you resent being told what to do throughout your life. IMHO this stems from an unconscious desire to have had parents that love you enough to discipline you, know where you are, what you are doing and have the desire and wherewithal to make sure that you are doing the right thing despite your best efforts to avoid their control.

It is an innate human drive (instinct) to crave guidance, protection, nourishment and love from your parents. The "gangsta" culture results when these needs are not met by parents and influential adults. IMHO this is is at the heart of the "gangsta culture". If you study the dress, language and mannerisms of much of today's youth, you will find that they demonstrate the exact opposite of what "normal" parents would repeatedly tell their children.

Examples are:
  • Be careful not to tear your clothes
  • Don't say dirty words
  • Tie your shoelaces
  • Stand up straight, don't slouch
  • Pull up you pants
  • Don't wear hats indoors, it's disrespectful
  • Take your hands out of your pockets
  • Respect your elders
  • Turn down the music
  • Hush up, you are disturbing others
  • Your skirt is too short, that top is too revealing. Don't dress like a whore
It is clear that today's "gangsta culture", which originated in black and Hispanic ghettos, jail and prisons, has now become mainstream behavior for today's youth. IMHO this clearly demonstrates that today's youth are screaming for guidance. Instead of receiving guidance, discipline and "tough love" from their parents and teachers, they are being encouraged to experiment with their self expression. They are not criticized for fear of hurting their self-esteem. In turn their resentments and unrestrained freedom leads them to express the most inconsiderate, rude, obnoxious and offensive things with an inner hope that someone will care enough to reel them in and provide the dicipline, guidance and tough-love that they crave. Instead they are either ignored or encouraged.

 It is clear that most people think it is extremely inconsiderate to talk on cell phones while driving, at the movies, etc, yet most people either ignore this bad behavior or encourage it. The same goes for loud cars, motorcycles and sound systems. Nearly all the comments that I read on these topics are overwhelmingly opposed to this bad behavior but few have the guts to say or do anything about it.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Gay activist, Harry Knox, who serves on Obama's "faith based advisory counsel", attacks the Pope and spreads hurtful lies

According to Knox, the Pope is “hurting people in the name of Jesus,”. How is it possible that a man who Obama appointed to a position that is supposed to unify all faiths continues to attack the Pope with hurtful lies?

Here is an article and video about the false information that Knox continues to promote:

Here is an excerpt:
......According to Knox, the Pope is “hurting people in the name of Jesus,” because the Holy Father has suggested that promoting condom use in Africa will not end the suffering caused by the AIDS epidemic there and in fact increases the spread of HIV/AIDS. The problem with Knox’s position, despite his appeal to the ’science,’ is that the empirical evidence does not support his attack. It actually favors the Pope......

Here are some excerpts from an article that explains why Knox is wrong on the scientific evidence:
.....Almost one year ago, Edward Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health who at one time supported condom distribution in Africa to fight AIDS, wrote an op. ed. piece in the Washington Post about the Pope’s comments. There he points out that numerous independent studies have reached the same conclusion as the Pope. He writes, “In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations’ AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa.......

.......How does one explain these results? In scientific terms, Dr.Green calls it a phenomena known as “Risk Compensation”. In laymans terms it is simply the fact that when people feel safer while they participate in risky behavior they are more likely to increase the risky behavior. Add to that the failure rates of condoms due to human error, long shelf life, etc., and you have a recipe for disaster –..........

.....But this is only one half of the debate. The evidence clearly shows that increased condom use in Africa has increased infection rates, but does it also show that alternative prevention programs that focus on fidelity and abstinence are effective? Again, the answer is clear......

...........And now that we have examined the evidence, let’s listen once again to what the Pope actually said about the situation in Africa and see who sounds more in line with ‘the science.’

“I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness — even through personal sacrifice — to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.”.......
Here is the link to the entire article:

Here is an excerpt from an article that shows exactly who Harry Knox is:
.......Harry Knox, who is a member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group......

......According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Web site, the religion and faith program run by Knox has created “a weekly preaching resource that provides scriptural commentary to ministers and lay people interested in an ecumenical gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender perspective on the Bible.".....

.....In addition to his remarks about the Pope, Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8. The latter was a ballot initiative that amended California’s state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and passed in November 2008........
Here is the link to the entire article:

I have no objection to Obama appointing gay people. Of course they can do the job just like anyone else. However, Obama has appointed two gay activists with radical agendas. They are Kevin Jennings and Harry Knox. I fear that the MSM will keep these stories quiet because it is not politically correct to criticize gays, even if they are intolerant, hateful, bigoted and perverted. This harmful form of political correctness is a direct result of the fear of intimidation and retribution that critics of gays face from the gay activists.

It is a clear sign that our society is in decline because we are being bullied by a bunch of sissies.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Is The Global Warming Hoax Too Big To Fail?

Al Gore has millions invested in global warming carbon credit schemes. General electric is counting on huge federal subsidies to make their massive wind turbine business prosper. Top universities and professors are counting on huge grants and federal funding for their climate research projects. The United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Program on Climate Change) is working on a scheme to redistribute 100 trillion dollars from wealthy productive nations to poor, corrupt and nonproductive nations under the guise of the global warming hoax. Madison Avenue advertising firms have successfully incorporated climate change into many of their top advertising campaigns. The federal Government has placed polar bears in a new category of "threatened species" despite the fact that they are currently thriving, because their habitat is expected to "melt" in 50 years due to global warming. The president and the democratic party have spent massive political capital on pushing their "Cap and Trade" bill which will tax carbon producers to the tune of 50 trillion dollars over the next 50 years.

The global warming hoax has woven itself into our government, our economy, our universities, our public schools and into the the United nations. Trillions of dollars are being risked on the global warming hoax, which is the biggest hoax in the history of the planet.

Although it is clear that the Earth is not in peril, CO2 is not a pollutant and polar bears have a bright future ahead,, can we allow this hoax to fail? The very survival of corporations, countries and educational systems depend on the survival of the global warming hoax.

IMHO, massive funding and publicity will be put into a concerted effort to suppress the truth and promote the lie about global warming. This hoax will not be unravelled without a fight. It is too big to fail. Too many careers, politicians, companies, schools and nations are depending on it. If you thought that you have seen massive propaganda about the global warming hoax in the past ten years, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Grandparents Are Working Hard While Their Grown Grandchildren Are Goofing Off

I went to the grocery store over the weekend and something struck me as extremely odd. Most of the cashiers and bag(boys) were senior citizens. They appeared to be in their 60's, 70's, and even 80's. In the past, young people worked the cash register and high school kids did the bagging. It just didn't seem right when an octogenarian asked if he could help me to my car with my groceries. What is wrong with this picture?

This change was gradual over the years and almost went unnoticed until yesterday. What has happened to us? I noticed many youngsters in the store that were decked out with the latest fashions, fancy hair styles, tattoos, sexy clothes, chatting on the pricey cell phones, and being completely self-indulgent, while their grandparents and great-grandparents were struggling to earn minimum wage. Why are we not taking care of our seniors? I don't mean medicare, social security and food stamps. I mean why are their children not taking care of them? Do they think that it is not their responsibility? Do they think that the government will provide for them? Are they blind to this odd juxtaposition?

Where did the youngsters get the money to drive new tricked-out automobiles with blaring sound systems and exhaust while their grandparents carry groceries out to these cars? Are the fancy cars in the parking lot paid for with borrowed money that will never be payed back? Did they get college loans from Uncle Sam and buy new cars with the money instead? Are they depleting their inheritances from their grandparents who worked every day of their life so that their grand-kids could have an easier life? What happens when the money runs out and times get rough?

The old people seem to have character and they are willing to make sacrifices and "do whatever it takes", but what about today's youth? Do they have character? Will they have what it takes when push comes to shove? I think not. I think there will be anarchy, crime and riots when the next great depression hits. The pretty women will sell themselves as prostitutes. They already dress the part, with extremely provocative seductive clothing and demeanor. But now they just give it away for free for the fun of it, without marriage or commitment. They are cheap now, but in hard times they'll sell themselves to the highest bidder. The boys will  become the thugs that they now emulate with their dress, language, attitude and song. They will loot these very same stores and trample the old folks to get what they need when scarcity becomes widespread. Only our old folks have the character, determination and moral restraint to turn things around. I fear for the days when they are gone.