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Gay Activists Will Not Stop Their Demands Once DADT is Repealed, Instead, They Will Insist on the Most Bizarre Accommodations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If DADT is repealed, where will the admittedly gay men sleep and shower?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.