Sunday, November 30, 2008
Without imposing tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, American manufacturers can not compete with foreign imports. This will result in a decrease of the US manufacturing base, and an increase on dependence on foreign goods.
I will list some of the major expenses and regulations that our government places on American business. These expenses and regulations grossly increase our cost of doing business as compared to foreign companies from China, Mexico and many other major trading partners.
1) The US places regulations on child labor in the work force.
2) The US places regulations on minimum hourly wages and overtime.
3) The US requires that companies pay for and provide, Workman's Compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. Workers and companies also share the cost of Social Security and Medicare for all US workers.
4) US companies are strictly regulated to prevent them from dumping waste in waterways, in the air and in unregulated landfills. As a result, eco-friendly waste disposal has become a major expense for US businesses.
5) US companies must comply with strict OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations, which protect workers from unsafe working conditions in factories, mines, and other businesses.
6) Us companies face product safety regulations which, among other things, prevent them from using lead based paint in children's toys or producing tires that are likely to blow out and cause crashes.
7) US food companies are strictly regulated for food safety.
8) US drug companies are required to have costly testing and trials. They must get FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval before being allowed to put new medications on the market.
9) Factories, commercial buildings, homes, bridges and highways face stringent building code regulations. These regulations are intended to reduce collapses, fires, accidents and hazardous conditions. Also these regulations help buildings, bridges and roads stand up to hurricanes earthquakes and other natural disasters. US structures are among the safest in the world.
10) US auto manufactures face strict safety and environmental regulations to make sure that vehicles on American highways are as safe and pollution-free as possible. The US boasts safer and cleaner vehicles than most of the rest of the world.
These are just some of the US regulations that I can think of off the top of my head. Although many of these regulations go too far, and some may not be effective enough, for the most part these costly regulations on US business and infrastructure, help America to produce the safest products, under the safest, cleanest and most humane conditions. This is done in a manner that keeps American waterways, air and land, cleaner and healthier than most other nations of the world.
There are only two options that can level the playing field when competing with foreign businesses. The first would be to remove the regulations that I listed above, thus bringing down the cost of doing business in the US. The second option would be to place tariffs on foreign imports.
It would be a step back into the dark ages, to reduce or eliminate many of the regulations that have protected American workers and consumers in our modern era.
We can not control the way foreign countries choose to regulate their businesses. It is clear to me, that there is only one way to level the playing field, when competing with foreign businesses. It is to place tariffs and regulations on foreign imports, so that US industries can compete with them, while still maintaining our high American standards.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
The Carleton University Students' Association has voted to drop a cystic fibrosis charity as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, supporting a motion that argued the disease is not "inclusive" enough. Click on above text, to read more.
This is another example of "political correctness" (censorship and bullying) run-a muck on university campuses. This problem is worse in Canada than the US. This is a clear case of reverse discrimination which is widespread in today's popular culture.
First of all, reverse discrimination is a misnomer, because discrimination is not defined as bias or bigotry targeted against under-privileged minorities. There is no such thing as forward or revers discrimination. Discrimination is simply discrimination.
Secondly, most discrimination is not harmful, to the contrary, discrimination is a helpful survival tool. We all discriminate in the friends we choose, the spouse we choose, where we choose to live, what neighborhoods we choose to "hang out in", what school we choose, what career we choose, who we choose to hire, who we choose to to lend money to, who we choose to live with and who we choose to rent to. Illegal discrimination is another story and should not be tolerated, but discrimination is not a dirty word. Most typical discrimination is a good, necessary and and important survival tool.
One more thing on this topic. Liberals are constantly using the words bigot, racist, homophobes, and chauvinist indiscriminately. One needs to use discrimination, when launching these vitriolic attacks. I believe that a false accusation of racism is equally harmful as an act of racism. Falsely accusing people of racism has become casual and popular. However, the consequences are just as damaging as racist words and actions. The casual accusation of racism, when not warranted, stifles(censors) public and private conversations, for fear of being called a racist. Being labeled a racist is one of the worst stereotypes in today's popular culture. This label can affect ones career and lifestyle. This accusation can even affect where one is welcome and allowed to work and live. To casually accuse a well meaning person of racism has far-reaching affects that is tantamount to true racism.
It is time that "race-baiters" be held to the same standard as true racists.
Friday, November 28, 2008
1) America (and Americans) consumes more than it produces.
2) America (and Americans) borrows more than it saves.
Under these conditions, the American standard of living can only be sustained by selling off assets that we have accumulated in the past, and/or borrowing money with a promise to repay it in the future. Obviously this can not go on indefinitely, there will come a day of reckoning. This day may be postponed slightly with government bailouts. But bailouts will only exacerbate the problem because they will undermine the foundation of our capitalist system. Also, the demand for continuing government bailouts will become insatiable. Bailouts will lead to the eventual insolvency of the federal government.
The only way for us to build a sustainable economy, that will come back healthy and strong, is to produce more, consume less, save more and borrow less. Politicians and citizens are unwilling to face this undeniable hard truth. We must manufacture more, import less, consume less, borrow less and save more. This will mean higher consumer prices, higher interest rates, lower wages and less amenities for most Americans in the foreseeable future. We must also become energy independent, by drilling for more oil, building more nuclear power plants and through technological innovation. This will mean higher energy costs in the short term.
If we do not collectively make these sacrifices, the results will be devastating.This strong medicine will stabilize our current economic woes and build a stronger and more prosperous American future.This is the only responsible way to insure economic stability and the future prosperity of America.
However, politicians on both sides of the isle, are calling for the exact opposite. They are lowering interest rates, which discourage savings and encourages borrowing. They are encouraging consumers to borrow more and spend more, by making consumer credit more widely available. The government is borrowing trillions of dollars, through huge federal budget deficits, to finance "economic stimulus packages", bailouts and ever-growing government programs. Federal bailouts will reward mismanaged, corrupt and unprofitable corporations. Bailouts also tempt businesses and government officials with corruption. Bailouts also stifle the growth of healthy, profitable companies, because they are competing at a disadvantage with government subsidized companies, who are crowding them out of the market.
The government is also signing "free trade agreements", rather than putting tariffs on imports. This motivates us to buy cheaper goods from overseas, rather than producing more goods here. Often American companies can not compete with foreign companies. Foreign companies often do not have the same high environmental standards, safety standards, labor standards and high taxes that American companies face. It is unfair to have American companies compete with foreign companies without tariffs to level the playing field. Without tariffs, America's manufacturing base will continue to erode. We must produce as much as we consume in order to sustain our economy in an unstable world economy and for reasons of national security.
The American "standard of living " is unsustainable under the current conditions. Rather than accepting this "truth" and making appropriate sacrifices, government is mortgaging America's future, in order to buy us a little more time of "living beyond our means".
A fitting analogy would be, the prospect of surgery and subsequent chemotherapy for a cancer patient. Surgery and chemotherapy will ensure pain and suffering in the short term, but the patient will have an excellent chance of recovery. Postponing the surgical option, and improving the patients "quality of life" with painkillers, will certainly insure the patients death. If, we as a nation, do not choose the more painful option in the short term, we face almost certain catastrophic economic failure and possibly the end of America as we know it.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Do you think that if Europeans had never conquered and "tamed" the American landscape, the world would be better off? Do you know that many Native American tribes were in a continuing state of battle with each other until Europeans brought peace to this continent. Do you know that lasting peace is almost always purchased with bloodshed? If Europeans had never settled America, would another powerful, yet benevolent nation have risen up to save Europe from Hitler during the second world war? Would the Native Americans have built such a strong economy, that they would have been able to donate billions of dollars annually, in foreign aid for the merciful missions of providing, food, medicine and aid for natural disasters? Would Native Americans, and migrating Mexicans, have built and financed universities that educate millions of people each year, many from foreign nations, who help spread modern technology that brings prosperity, medicine and modern farming techniques to our huge land mass, as well as to all corners of the globe. Would native Americans have offered, political, religious and economic refugees from all corners of the Earth, a chance to immigrate to America and assimilate into their tribe? Would the American dollar have reached out to purchase goods and services from all corners of the world, thus raising the standard of living worldwide? Has any other nation paid reparations to the descendants of a nation that they conquered in battle?
I suppose those things are possible. However, to date, America, founded by Christian European settlers, is the only nation that has ever attained exceptionalism in all of these areas and then some. It is sad to see the traditional American culture, which is uniquely exceptional, being replaced by multiculturalism, diversity without virtue, and a secular culture rooted in moral depravity. I am sorry to say that the latter culture is not only unexceptional, but it is unsustainable.
Click here for "The Real Story of Thanksgiving" as told by Rush Limbaugh. Rush talks about how capitalism and American exceptionalism was born in the early 1600s.
Click here for President Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Click here for President Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
A Zogby telephone poll was conducted of 512 Obama voters. This poll included 97% high school graduates and 55% college graduates. They were all asked 12 multiple choice questions about the presidential campaign and high level political figures in the news that relate to the presidential campaign. Most of the questions they answered incorrectly. What is astonishing is that many of the answers were answered wrong by over 75% of the respondents, and there were only 4 choices given. This means that they answered them worse that if they had guessed. The only conclusion one can arrive at, is that they have been receiving deceptive, manipulative and biased information.
This study confirms my strong beliefs that the public schools, universities, the media and the arts profoundly distort the views of today's popular culture by purposely filtering the information that they disseminate.
Click on the link below to view this shocking video of well educated Obama voters, who are totally ignorant of many of the top issues regarding the recent presidential campaign.
This video and poll are no surprise to me. I have been writing on my blog, for a long time, about how the public schools, universities, the media and the arts have been deceptive, manipulative and biased. The clearest example of this is the global warming theory. I find it amazing that an unproven theory, that defies common sense, is being taught in our schools and universities, as if it was a well established scientific fact.
These days, when I see college students, I do not admire them for their quest for knowledge because the majority are lacking in wisdom. They follow a heard mentality toward whatever is considered to be cool, offensive to conservatives and in opposition to "love of God", family and country. They have been brainwashed to believe that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue. Thus they celebrate and embrace the most negative and bizarre forms of diversity. Often they are rewarded for this by respect, admiration and love from their peers, teachers and parent(s).
Most universities, media, and artists; question, reject and vilify, anything that supports our traditional American culture. They do not accept the premise that America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that the world has ever seen. They use convoluted logic, quote questionable statistics, take quotes out of context, either suppress or emphasize various information and use emotion to make their arguments, but they overlook the obvious truth, reason and common sense. Often they use examples which are the "least likely scenario". They often vilify their ideological opponents with charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, and greed. Often this tactic is successful in silencing their opposition. These tactics work best for them , because reason, commonsense and personal experience are often not compatible with their conclusions. What is most troubling, is that an honest search for truth is rarely seen.
I see the bricks, that form the foundation of this nation's greatness, being removed one by one. We are on the road to becoming a third rate corrupt and poor nation, like Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela. It is sad to see this happening before my very eyes. What is saddest, is that this downhill spiral, from American exceptionalism to economic and spiritual bankruptcy, is being led by today’s students and the universities, media and artists, that fill their heads with propaganda which they call "progressive".
Sunday, November 16, 2008
I have heard statistics that claim that charitable giving has increased over the past 40 years, this does not seem to ring true based on my personal observations. Statistics can be manipulated and used by people who do not debate in good faith, because they know that their statistics have loopholes.
The following are examples of voluntary charitable contributions that I witnessed 30 years ago. These examples may not have not shown up on any tax returns or ledger sheets, and may not be included in statistical studies on charitable giving. I can not prove or disprove their affect on the "charitable giving" statistics, however, they are surly omitted.
Thirty years ago,I spent a year in The Dalles Oregon, working on a farm. The majority of local people attended church every Sunday. The tradition of tithing was often discussed, and I believe that most parishioners practiced this tradition. This tradition requires that congregants donate 1/10th of their income to the church. This charitable giving is provable by tax records in many cases. However, many people believe that charitable giving should be a completely selfless act. These people choose not to report their donations on their tax returns, because they want their act of charitable giving be untarnished by benefiting from a tax deduction.
Also, I personally witnessed several physical acts of charity that were not likely to show up on a tax form or ledger sheet. One example is when the Church Pastor asked Charlie S (the farm owner that I was living with), if he could help out a homeless trio (a husband, wife and brother). These people were drifters, who's junk car finally "died" in The Dalles. They had no where to live and no money. They went to local Churches daily for food and clothing.
Mr. S put this trio up in a vacant "pickers shack" on his farm, equipped with 2 beds, a wood burning stove and a refrigerator. Mr. S offered them work, not because he was shorthanded, but because he wanted to help them get on their feet by their own efforts. The wages that Mr. S payed this trio did not show up anywhere as a charitable contribution, but that is exactly what they were.
Another example of heartfelt yet unreported charitable giving, was when Mr. S's brother, who was an accountant, flied my delinquent tax return for me without charge. I told him that I did not file my tax return for the previous 2 years, but I was sure that I was entitled to a refund. Mr. S's brother did my taxes for me, without asking for any compensation. Several weeks later I received a nice check from the IRS.
Another example is that their "Church's School" wanted to construct a running track around their ball field. The most expensive cost of its construction was the several hundred tons of red clay required to pave the track with. The Church found a clay Quarry that was willing to donate the quantity of clay needed, but the Church would have to find a way to transport it. The pastor called many of his parishioners who owned various medium and heavy duty trucks, capable of picking up and delivering small quantities of clay. Mr. S agreed to help the Church transport the clay.
Mr. S owned a small dump truck that he used for picking up grain and seeds and delivering manure. I "rode shotgun" with Mr. S's son when we spent an entire Saturday, making several trips, to and from, the far off quarry. We could only haul about 7 tons on each load. Mr. S spent over a hundred of dollars on fuel and we had a tire blow out on our last load, which cost hundreds to repair. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that Charlie S claimed these expenses as charitable donations. We were not alone, there was a whole fleet of trucks doing the same thing as us. By the end of the Day, the clay had been delivered.
On the other hand, some of today's charities are scams, that spend a much of their income on salaries and operating costs. Other charities are little more than political organizations, that are pushing a political agenda. ACORN comes to mind. There are also, non-profit organizations that are a front for terrorist organizations. They funnel funds to terrorists overseas. Donations to these organizations, show up as charitable donations in statistical reports. There are also many charitable contributions to causes that claim to be fighting global warming. Global warming is a threat that is not proved to be real, yet these donations show up as charitable contributions, even though their benefit is questionable. Also, many people donate unusable items, such as broken down cars, trucks and boats, and torn clothing or worn out underwear, for the express purpose of receiving a tax deduction. I would not consider these examples as charity, but they are included in statistics.
I believe that voluntary charity is beneficial to both the giver and the receiver. Charitable giving uplifts one's spirit and strengthens one's soul. When the relationship between giver and receiver is personal and genuine, everyone benefits.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
In a free market, companies will not take on undue risk, because it will eventually come back to hurt them financially. The main reason why the real-estate market took on so many risky loans, was because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were empowered to buy these risky loans, freeing the banks from their risk. The only reason why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought risky loans, was because the federal government guaranteed the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When the government guarantees that a company will not be allowed to fail, no matter how risky its behavior, this promotes more risky behavior without restrictions or limits. As a result, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bought up 50% of all home mortgages, mostly the riskiest ones. This was no longer a free market, because the risk has been taken out of doing business. If the financial risk is taken out of any business transaction, money is bound to be lost, because there is nothing to stop any deal from going through. The reason why most banks carefully check out a clients credit worthiness before making a loan, is that they will lose money if the loan is not repaid, not because of regulations. If enough loans are not repaid, they will go out of business. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had no such constraints. Commissions were made, every time a mortgage was bought or sold and the company was making lots of money while the real estate market was on the rise and they were protected from failure, should the market fall.
Liberal politicians and community organizers, pressured banks into making risky loans to minorities, poor people. Banks were inclined to acquiesce, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to relieve them of their risk. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eventually became insolvent, banks were stuck with the risky loans that they had on hand. Also, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had been repackaging many of these risky loans into a financial instrument called "Mortgage Backed Securities" and they sold them on the securities market. This is how these risky loans circulated throughout the financial industry and eventually put many financial institutions at risk.
The lesson to be learned here is not that the markets require more regulation. The lesson is that the government will distort any market by guaranteeing any business from failure. That guarantee, guarantees risky behavior on the part of that institution. It will inevitably lead to insolvency.
The current trend toward government bail-outs, government acquisitions and loan guarantees is exactly the same behavior that caused these financial institutions to fail in the first place. I can see no other outcome than the eventual failure of more businesses and financial institutions resulting from this increased government interference in free markets.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
In today's popular culture, single moms and homosexuals who raise children, are becoming more common and more widely accepted. This explains why our society is becoming "feminized".
Feminine attributes have come to be considered more important than masculine attributes because so many families are fatherless, and many children are primarily influenced by females. This puts our society out of balance. Masculine and feminine attributes complement each other and help produce balanced children.
Examples of feminine attributes include: empathy, appreciation for art, beauty and style, tenderness and nurturing support.
Masculine attributes include: discipline, strength, reason, and competitiveness.
There are also detriments pertaining to each sex, these need to be restrained by the opposite sex. detriments for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Detriments common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.
Of course these are only generalizations, but by and large, they are accurate. For example: Far less women are in prison than men. You see far more men in prison for violent and sexually aggressive crimes than women. Common crimes that women commit are prostitution, shoplifting and credit-card or check fraud. Far more women are single parents than men. Far more women teach grade-school than men. Men are more common teachers in high school. Far more men are tradesman than women. Far more women are involved in fashion, design and service jobs such as waitress and haircutting. Of course you can find exceptions, but my examples include the overwhelming majority.
This is not due to discrimination or stereotyping, these are the choices that men and women make based on their preferences, natural instincts and desires. The point is that men and women are intrinsically different in their strengths and weaknesses. Men and women serve to complement and restrain each-other in an ideal family. A family that does not include both feminine and masculine influences, will result in children that are out of balance in some way.
Currently, I see our society out of balance in favor of femininity over masculinity. The problem with this is that the negative aspects of femininity are not restrained by male attributes, while the positive attributes of the male are not as widely encouraged as the natural feminine attributes. Examples are:
- Natural male aggressiveness, curiosity and mischievousness is discouraged. Boys that act too much like boys, are often diagnosed with ADD and subdued with psychotropic medications such as Ritalin.
- In the past, it was usually the fathers role to physically discipline children. It was the mothers role to protect them. In today's feminized culture, corporal punishment of children has been stigmatized and outlawed in most cases. Everyone protects children, but no one is likely to discipline them.
- Men are encouraged to be more sensitive. They are told that it is OK for men to cry.
- Competition is discouraged. In school sports, most all participants are recognized with awards and trophies, whether they are on the winning or losing team.
- Men are becoming more vane with regards to their physical appearance. It has become commonplace for men to wear jewelry, dye their hair and wear sexy clothing.
- Seductive clothing and behavior is unrestrained in both women and men.
- Today's popular culture has a mother's instinct, who wants her children to be safe at all costs. Our soldiers are regarded as victims, rather than courageous heroes, willing to risk their lives in a selfless effort to protect women and children on the home front for a noble cause greater than themselves.
- Often, honesty plays second fiddle to self-esteem. Dishonesty is OK if it spares hurt feelings. Self esteem often trumps brutal honesty, regardless of the unintended consequences.
- Often, political persuasion relies heavily on emotion, rather than reason. Symbolism over substance is the mainstay of many political campaigns. Slogans such as "I can feel your pain" or I stand for "hope" are common political rhetoric.
- Creating class envy between rich and poor, minority and majority, men and women, gay and straight, legal citizen and illegal alien, have become common political strategies. Jealousy and envy are emotions that are often played upon by a feminized society.
- Often, TV shows and commercials portray women as cool, smart and stylish, while traditional men are portrayed as clumsy and stupid. But, if the men are feminized in appearance and emotional sensitivity, they are also portrayed as cool and smart.
- Hunting, fishing ,eating meat, and using animals' hides for clothing, is often considered cruelty to animals. A more sensitive, emotional and feminized approach, is not to harm any living thing.
Again, I'm sure that you can find exceptions, but the current trend is definitely moving toward femininity and away from masculinity. This imbalance will leave feminine shortcomings to go unchecked and will also place restraint on masculine strengths. This shift can only weaken, impoverish and reduce the freedoms that are only possible and practical for "humanity in balance".
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Iran has not responded to global economic sanctions and political pressure to halt its development of nuclear weapons. To the contrary, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmanadinejad, boasts that he has over 3,000 centrifuges at work producing nuclear material. Ahmanadinejad frequently makes speeches in Iran, promising to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He refers to Israel as the little Satin, and the US as the Great Satin. Recently, Ahmanadinejad addressed the UN in New York City. Before his speech, he said a little prayer in Arabic , as usual. It was not widely reported that the purpose of this prayer was to hasten the arrival of the Mahdi, a spiritual figure, who will eventually usher in a new era of peace, under worldwide Islamic law. The next step necessary to summon the Mahdi, according to Ahmanandinejad's beliefs, is to create world-wide havoc and the death and destruction of those who refuse to convert to Islam (the religion of peace).
What I have written above is nothing new. However, what is new, is our new President-elect Obama and that he is backed by two Democratic houses in Congress. Obama believes that negotiation will lead to peace, just as Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler prior to World war two, in hopes of peace with Germany. Secondly, Obama has been friendly with pro-Palestinian activists such as Sheik Rashid Khalidi, and Louis Farrakhan. For these reasons, many people believe that Obama might not stand up to Iran, before it is too late.
If Iran were allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, it is certain that they will use them on Israel and likely that they will give them to terrorists to cause world-wide havoc. Iran already supplies the terrorist organization "Hezbollah" with bombs, weapons, funding and training. Recently, Hezbollah terrorists, funded and supplied by Iran, provoked a war with Israel in Lebanon. Since the cease fire, two years ago, Hezbollah has grown stronger and better equipped, thanks to help from Iran and an ineffective U.N. peacekeeping agreement.
By all accounts, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities seems to be inevitable, unless Iran halts its nuclear ambitions. However, many feel that this will not happen under an Obama administration. Currently Israel receives military aid from the US, in the form of weapons, intelligence, training and funding. I believe that Israel is keenly aware of the imminent threat that it faces from Iran. Should Iran successfully develop a nuclear weapon, they would surely use it on Israel. However, Israel is wary that President Obama might not lend US support, if Israel were to launch a preemptive attack against Iran.
Therefore, I strongly believe that Israel, with the support and behind-the-scenes help form the US, will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities within the next 72 days, before president-elect Obama is sworn into office.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Diane Feinstein's argument that proposition 8 is tantamount to discrimination, is also convoluted logic. First of all, homosexual behavior is exactly that, a behavior. All of our laws regulate human behavior. To say that a law is discriminatory because it regulates behavior, is to say that all of our laws are discriminatory. Secondly, homosexuals are not discriminated against because they have always been free to marry. In the American culture, marriage has always been defined as the union between one man and one woman. The homosexual activists are trying to re-define marriage in order to promote their agenda. Proposition 8, merely defines marriage as it has always been defined traditionally. Homosexuals are free to marry, as currently defined, just like anyone else, therefore, they are not being discriminated against.
Homosexual activists are always claiming that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, just like segregation was. They compare their movement to the civil rights movement and often use the same rhetoric. . However, most blacks strongly disagree with that. Did you know that exit polling on California's Proposition 8, showed that 70% percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8, banning gay marriage? Most blacks are insulted when homosexual issues are compared to civil rights issues. The black civil rights movement gave blacks the right to an equal vote, an end to segregation, the right for equal opportunity in education and employment and the right to live, eat and travel where they wanted. All of these things were denied to blacks prior to the civil rights movement. None of these things are denied to homosexuals. Civil rights laws assure equal opportunity based on race, religion, sex, and national origin. Homosexuality is none of those things, it is a sexual behavior.
It is clear, and statistics prove, that the ideal environment for children to raised in, is with their natural mother and father. This relationship, not only raises happier, better adjusted and more productive children, but the parents also are far better off than those in any other type of family relationship that does not include an intact family unit. "Intact nuclear families" are the "bricks" that all healthy societies are built with. To celebrate and encourage blended (step) families, single moms, Mr. moms, un-wed parents and homosexual families, is to discourage that which strengthens individuals, families, communities and our nation. Of course the "ideal family" is not always possible, but it should be encouraged wherever possible, and less healthy alternatives should be tolerated only as a last resort.
To present homosexuality as a normal human behavior, and something to be proud of, is to turn reason and common sense on its head. I believe that homosexuality is obviously an abnormal behavior. Today's popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between normal and abnormal, right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy, considerate and inconsiderate, masculine and feminine, positive and negative, fact and fiction, noble and shameful and good and bad.
Other prominent examples of convoluted reasoning are: celebrating the gangster culture, teaching that men and women are essentially the same with interchangeable roles in family and career, teaching that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue, portraying racism as a major obstacle for minorities in Today's America and portraying radical Islam as a religion of peace.
Once we become accustomed to accepting all forms diversity, moral equivalencies and convoluted-reasoning, our moral compasses become "out of whack". It is wrongly taught that all forms of diverse human behavior should be accepted and celebrated. It is also taught that judging certain diverse forms of human behavior is cruel and represents bigotry. I believe that it is healthy and necessary to judge people based on their behavior. To demonize this aspect of our thoughts, words and actions, is to deny the essence of a society that strives to become healthier, freer, stronger and more prosperous. Healthy normal people and families, are obliged to reject that which brings weakness, decay and misery, to their community and nation.
Even the most obviously bizarre and negative behavior becomes acceptable and on par with healthy normal behavior. The public display of homosexuality, S&M and sexual fetishes at " gay pride parades" and San Francisco's "Folsum Street Fair" is glaring example of celebrating, accepting and putting negative behavior on public display.
As I have said many times before, the "global warming myth" is the most obvious example of turning reason and common sense on its head. Man-made global warming is only a theory, yet it is being taught as a cold, hard fact in our public schools and universities. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict next week's weather, yet global warming proponents predict what the Earth's climate will be like in 50 years with absolute certainty. Al Gore said: "Global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time". I disagree, it is only a scientific theory. Once again, convoluted-logic is being used to turn reason on its head, and it has become widely accepted.
Another example is that many university professors, choose to share their anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, anti-family and Marxist views with their young, naive and impressionable students. They are not only allowed to teach at American universities and influence our youth, but they are held in high regard by the faculty and considered extremely cool by the students. Three examples are William Ayres ,Ward Churchill and Rashid Khalidi. This kind of subversive manipulation of today's students, will only lead to less freedom, less wealth and less strength in tomorrow's America.
The mood on today's universities is becoming increasingly hostile toward America and many of the institutions that keep us strong, free and prosperous. Institutions that are frequently ridiculed and attacked on today's college campuses include, The Church, the intact nuclear family, the military, and the police.
The video below, is a recent protest that took place in downtown Santa Barbara. The UC Santa Barbara College Republicans decided to stop by and see what it was all about. Can anyone deny that these people hate the military and the country?
There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about encouraging that which is healthy, normal and positive. It is also the obligation of our teachers, political leaders and religious leaders to discourage negative, destructive, amoral behavior. Doing anything less, will lead to the diminishment of our families, communities and our nation as a whole. Encouraging "less than positive behavior", will also adversely affect homosexuals. Homosexuals are also a part of our society, and also benefit from that which keeps our people and nation, free, strong, prosperous and healthy.