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.
Friday, May 4, 2012
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".
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.read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_war_on_the_family_rages_on.html
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.
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: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/06/20/supreme-court-sides-with-wal-mart-in-sex-bias-case/
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.
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: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/06/20/supreme-court-sides-with-wal-mart-in-sex-bias-case/
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: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/incoherent_view.html
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: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/incoherent_view.html
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.
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.
excerpt:
read more: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2010/09/06/the_higher_education_bubble_ready_to_burst
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.
excerpt:
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: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2010/09/06/the_higher_education_bubble_ready_to_burst
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)
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY0ccH7Hchw
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.Here is the article from newsbusters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2010/08/21/bozell-column-sleazy-songs-summer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"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."
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY0ccH7Hchw
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.
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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM&feature=player_embedded
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 $4 for each pound oil collected oil the gulf? This will surely motivate all available boats into action. This will surely motivate all types of innovation in efficiently and effectively collecting oil from the gulf.
Homeless people and jobless people would be scouring the beaches and the marshes collecting tar balls instead of aluminum cans.
I have seen many solutions offered, such as hay to soak up the oil and membranes to filter it. BP and the federal government has rejected these solutions.
Why not let capitalism find the moist effective way to clean up the oil spill?
Before the spill had happened, shrimp boats went out every day. They were motivated to catch shrimp because they Knew they could sell their catch for 4$ 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.
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YpzOKyVH1o&feature=player_embedded
By definition, supporters of Jihad are traitors, bigots, homophobes, sexists and haters. here is a link to a related article:
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/counterterror_chief_says_jihad_is_Rm2iuCqr4siSwrsoxE9yjO
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: http://theobamafile.com/_associates/ObamaAssociates.htm
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.
By definition, supporters of Jihad are traitors, bigots, homophobes, sexists and haters. here is a link to a related article:
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/counterterror_chief_says_jihad_is_Rm2iuCqr4siSwrsoxE9yjO
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: http://theobamafile.com/_associates/ObamaAssociates.htm
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.
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 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: http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/companies/SEIU_Bank_of_America_protest.fortune/index.htm
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 theCommunistsbankers , and I didn't speak up because I wasn't aCommunistbanker .
THEN THEY CAME for theJewsIsraelis ,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't aJewIsraeli .
THEN THEY CAME fortrade unionistsFOX News, Talk Radio, and the Internet , and I didn't speak up because I wasn'ttrade unionistFox News, Talk Radio and the Internet .
THEN THEY CAME for me
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.
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:
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:
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: http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/05/10/nancy-pelosi-asks-the-catholic-church-to-preach-in-favor-of-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens/
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.
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: http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/05/10/nancy-pelosi-asks-the-catholic-church-to-preach-in-favor-of-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens/
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 americansfortruth.com:
Here is the link to the entire article:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/gay-icon-kameny-says-bestiality-ok-as-long-as-the-animal-doesnt-mind.html
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"
Here is the link to the entire article: http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/
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.
The following is an excerpt from an article from americansfortruth.com:
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:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/gay-icon-kameny-says-bestiality-ok-as-long-as-the-animal-doesnt-mind.html
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: http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/
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: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/patriotic-respectful-and-homophobic-a-portrait-of-british-muslims-state-of-mind-1681062.html
Here is an except from the article:
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: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwhittle/100002250/liberal-gays-are-scared-to-tell-the-truth-about-muslim-homophobia/
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.
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: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwhittle/100002250/liberal-gays-are-scared-to-tell-the-truth-about-muslim-homophobia/
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": http://garyganu.blogspot.com/2008/07/global-warming-myth-revisited.html
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": http://garyganu.blogspot.com/2008/07/global-warming-myth-revisited.html
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: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Most_transparent_White_House_ever.html?showall
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.
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: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Most_transparent_White_House_ever.html?showall
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: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-22/stand-with-south-park/full/
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.
UPDATE:
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: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/23/its-on-everybody-draw-mohammed-day-set-for-may-20th/
Here is an excerpt:
Here is the link to the entire article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-22/stand-with-south-park/full/
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 mudI know that my jokes are pretty lame. (lol) Please help me come up with some good ones.
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.
UPDATE:
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: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/23/its-on-everybody-draw-mohammed-day-set-for-may-20th/
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
