Modern Christianity undoubtedly has a positive role in today's world and in American culture. It upsets me when I see Christianity mocked and demonized by people who would rather exempt themselves from Christian values. IMHO, Christian values are universal spiritual principles. IMHO, Christian values were indispensable in the formation of the US which led us to become the freest, wealthiest, most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. IMHO, our nation is in decline because we are straying from the Christian values that this nation was founded upon.
I believe that societal progress is not evolutionary, it is cyclical and repetitive. We (the human race) can never improve our humanity as a whole over time, in the long run here on Earth. The human race is NOT perfectible. We (as a people)never learn. God made us flawed. God gave us free will. We all struggle with the good and evil inclinations within each of us. This is just the way it is. History repeats itself.
We may have more stuff and more liberties now, but times of plenty and times of famine have always been a cyclical part of human history. Scarcity and oppression will surely follow. Individuals have the same strengths and weaknesses as we did during biblical times. History repeats itself. The human soul faces the same challenges today as it always has. The human condition has been a constant since biblical times.
However, I believe that each one of us has constant and ongoing internal struggles with good versus evil. This is permanent part of human nature. Successive generations will never improve human nature. History proves this to be true.
Never-the-less, I believe that we can advance our eternal soul if we make the right choices when we are challenged. Human existence constantly tests and challenges us all. Rich and poor, healthy and sickly, privileged and oppressed are all challenged spiritually. We all have free will. Even a slave has free will. Our choices in this lifetime will determine how our soul progresses spiritually in the next existence.
Perhaps those that have the least advantage in this life, find it easier to make righteous decisions. Perhaps they are positioned to have less difficulty making the right choices in this life, which will progress their soul in the next. This is why we should never pity those who appear less fortunate than us or be envious of those who appear more fortunate. We all have different challenges. Perhaps, in the long run, those who have it hardest on Earth are better off than those who are more comfortable, happy and privileged.
Spiritual progress in my personal yardstick for success in this lifetime. For some people, perhaps myself, not being evil is the best we can do much of the time.
These are my personal beliefs.
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Why Life's Obstacles Are a Necessary Part of Our Spiritual Life
A fundamental flaw in liberal thinking is that many liberals believe that all obstacles, in the road of life, are bad. I strongly disagree. I believe that God put obstacles in all of our paths to help us grow spiritually. IMHO, spiritual growth is the reason for being. Therefore, obstacles, sorrow, misfortunes, failures and even tragedies, are a nessisary part of our spiritual life, just as food and water are a nessisary part of our physical life. Often overcoming obstacles and dealing with them in accordance with universal spiritual principles, leads to spiritual growth, improves our eternal souls, and brings us closer to God.
I once saw an episode of "Twilight Zone" where a horrific low-life gangster died and was immediately sent to the "afterlife". In this afterlife, his every wish was granted and his every desire fulfilled. He lived in a luxurious mansion. He was surrounded by beautiful women who were willing to fulfill all of his fantasies. He had servants, fancy cars, luxurious clothing and he was very popular. Everyone laughed at his jokes and when he gambled, he always won.
At first he was overjoyed at his good fate. However, he was a bit surprised that an evil man like himself would end up in heaven.
As time went by, he became bored with all of his luxuries and good fortune. Pretty soon his boredom tuned into discontent, anger, displeasure, and torment. As strange as it seemed, he could no longer tolerate his good fortune. Everything was too predictable. He asked to lose occasionally when he gambled. But this only infuriated him more, because he knew that when he lost, it was because he had asked for it to be that way.
Finally, at the end of the program, he told the man in charge that he was no longer happy. He demanded to be happy. He said that he was supposed to be happy in heaven. The man in charge looked at him and laughed heartily. He said, "heaven, what made you think that you are in heaven?". This is the other place.
My point is that if liberals got everything that they thought would make an ideal world, they would be miserable and spiritually depraved. This is exactly what we are witnessing in today's popular culture.
I once saw an episode of "Twilight Zone" where a horrific low-life gangster died and was immediately sent to the "afterlife". In this afterlife, his every wish was granted and his every desire fulfilled. He lived in a luxurious mansion. He was surrounded by beautiful women who were willing to fulfill all of his fantasies. He had servants, fancy cars, luxurious clothing and he was very popular. Everyone laughed at his jokes and when he gambled, he always won.
At first he was overjoyed at his good fate. However, he was a bit surprised that an evil man like himself would end up in heaven.
As time went by, he became bored with all of his luxuries and good fortune. Pretty soon his boredom tuned into discontent, anger, displeasure, and torment. As strange as it seemed, he could no longer tolerate his good fortune. Everything was too predictable. He asked to lose occasionally when he gambled. But this only infuriated him more, because he knew that when he lost, it was because he had asked for it to be that way.
Finally, at the end of the program, he told the man in charge that he was no longer happy. He demanded to be happy. He said that he was supposed to be happy in heaven. The man in charge looked at him and laughed heartily. He said, "heaven, what made you think that you are in heaven?". This is the other place.
My point is that if liberals got everything that they thought would make an ideal world, they would be miserable and spiritually depraved. This is exactly what we are witnessing in today's popular culture.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Evolution and Entropy
During the past year I drove some 20,000 miles, mostly on rural roads which criss-crossed the continental United States. I listened to talk radio and took in the scenery as I drove. What I saw confirmed my belief that all life has been created and maintained by God and that God had a hand in all evolutionary advancements of life on Earth.
I saw cities and small towns in various states of decay and renewal. I saw roads in various states of decay and renewal. I saw farm houses, barns and grain silos in various states of decay and renewal. I saw railroad tracks in various states of decay and renewal. I saw telephone poles and power-lines in various states of decay and renewal. I saw fences in various states of decay and renewal. I saw bridges in various states of decay and renewal. I saw junkyards full of wrecked cars. I saw pastures with abandoned farm implements strewn about.
North Dakota was the most obvious place where I saw mother nature reclaiming all that man has built upon the land. I went to a web-site that I heard on a local radio program in ND about the numerous "ghost towns" in ND. http://www.ghostsofnorthdakota.com/ There I saw pictures and videos of various ghost towns that were in various states of decay. These pictures and videos were much like the sights that I had been seeing myself as I drove across the Midwest.
I was impressed of how the Earth had begun to reclaim everything that man had built upon it. I realized that all things that are built by man require maintenance. Without maintenance, the forces of nature will destroy and eventually remove all traces of anything that man has built. It occurred to me that it required intelligence with a purpose to build roads, buildings, bridges, fences, RR tracks, telephone poles, power lines, cars and tractors. It also occurred to me that all of these man-made structures and machinery required constant maintenance in order to keep them functioning. I saw that after they were abandoned and maintenance was no longer performed, it didn't take long for them to fall into a state of disrepair and eventually they would be reclaimed by nature, without a trace.
I saw various abandoned barns and farmhouses with their roofs caved in and their walls falling down. Some had decayed to the point that they were not much more than a pile of rubble with trees, shrubbery and grasses growing over them. Others seemed to be mostly complete structures with some broken windows and missing doors. Others were in an "in-between state" with the roof caving in, in the middle, and the walls leaning to one side.
I saw roads that were replaced by the road I was driving on. These abandoned roadways were also in various states of decay. Some were barely recognizable clearings through rocky areas. Other abandoned roadways had their concrete foundation broken into pieces and sticking up at different angles like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that didn't quite fit right. There were trees, bushes and weeds growing in the crevices between the broken pieces.
I saw abandoned railroad tracks that were buckled, broken and sticking-up in the air. There were telephone poles along these abandoned tracks that used to carry wires for signaling and switching devices. The poles were crooked, broken or laying on the ground. The wires were broken in places and drooping down to the ground in others.
I saw rotted and crumbling wooden silos, that were once used for storing grain.
I saw thousands of decaying automobile carcases in junkyards.
I saw old, rusted , decayed, obsolete tractors, combines and farm implements from days-gone-by, abandoned in cow pastures.
This experience proved the second law of thermodynamics which states that everything, in a closed system without outside influences, will decay from a state of order into a state of chaos and randomness. The measure this randomness is called entropy.
I realized that the only thing keeping structures, roads and machines operational, was the human influence of maintenance and repair. When the repair and maintenance ceased, even the strongest bridges, fences, roads and buildings would crumble to the ground in a short period of time.
It occurred to me that all these things have one thing in common. They required a purposeful and intelligent power to be brought into existence. And they continue to require a deliberate and intelligent power to remain functional. If they are neglected they will fall into disrepair, decay and eventually all traces of their existence will be gone.
It required a deliberate and intelligent power to create those houses, barns, roads, RR tracks, power lines, bridges, cars and farm implements. Their very existence is proof that order can be produced from chaos when an intelligent and deliberate power guides the process that created them. Man is that power. The moment that they are neglected by Man, they fall into disrepair, ruin, and eventually disappear entirely.
The contrast between the well maintained roads, bridges, barns, houses, RR tracks power lines, cars and farm implements, and those in various states of decay, proves that an intelligent and deliberate power is required to maintain these things and foster their usefulness and existence.
I reflected on the improvements made to the modern farm implements, which were giants compared to the relics of their ancestors. The modern RR tracks no longer had poles and signal wires alongside of them. They now used wireless communications to control lights and switches. The modern bridges required much less mass to carry heavier loads than the old fashioned bridges did. The car I was driving was air conditioned, had air-bags for safety, had stereo sound for entertainment and I was comfortably driving at 75 MPH on smooth and banked highways. The rotted wooden grain silos had been replaced by massive galvanized steel silos that stored 50 times the volume of grain as their predecessors did.
It seemed like the relics of the past were replaced with more "evolved" and better adapted specimens.
I have previously written in my article "Proof That God Exists", that the theory that life started when a lightening bolt struck a "primordial soup" that contained the right ingredients for life, was absurd. My reasoning was that a single cell is so complex and has so many moving parts and functions, that it would be more likely for a jumbo-jet, fueled up and ready to go, to emerge from that primordial soup, rather than a living organism. That is all true, but what I realize now, is that evolution is impossible unless it is guided by a deliberate and intelligent power. It requires a deliberate and intelligent power to create order out of chaos and to maintain it. A living organism is the quintessential definition of order. Without an intelligent and purposeful hand to create and maintain life, life would devolve, not evolve.
I didn't give this experience much thought until today when I came upon this article that says Ben Stein was dis-invited to speak at a commencement ceremony at the University of Vermont. This was because of students that protested his appearance because of his beliefs in "intelligent design". Here's the link: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/news/sns-ap-people-ben-stein,0,2200002.story
This article about Ben Stein, prompted me to realize the obvious fallacy in Darwin's evolutionary theory. This fallacy is proven by the second law of thermodynamics. I googled "second law of thermodynamics" to find the exact wording of the law. I was surprised to find that the first article that I went to was about the exact same theory that I already had come up with regarding evolution and entropy. Here is the link to that article entitled: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics". This article also dispels common arguments against this theory.
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
Entropy is defined as chaos, disorder, disorganization and randomness. Everything in the universe is becoming more disorganized, chaotic, disordered and random according to the second law of thermodynamics. Everything is decaying and returning to uselessness, randomness and disorder.The only exception that I can see, is when a purposeful and intelligent hand intervenes.
Manufactured things, such as houses, barns, roads, bridges, RR tracks, power lines, cars and farm implements are all examples of extremely ordered, organized things that are built and maintained by man for a specific purpose. The raw materials that were needed to build these things were deliberately removed from the "chaos" and "randomness" of nature and organized into useful objects for man's convenience, in a purposeful and intelligent manner. After Man has no more use for them and they become neglected, they begin to return back to the chaos and randomness of nature where they originally came from.
I realized that an intelligent and deliberate force, Man, was required to create order from chaos. I also noticed that the natural laws of the universe (the second law of thermodynamics) began to return these things to a state of chaos, randomness and disorder, the moment that they had become neglected by Man.
I marveled over these observations during my trip and sought out and examined all of these neglected relics of the past. I imagined what they looked like in their heyday and I understood that all things will eventually grow old, neglected and return to nature unless they are continually maintained.
It would be contrary to the second law of thermodynamics for complicated and ordered "living cell" to be created by chance from the chaos of the primordial soup, unless it was arranged by an intelligent, deliberate power (God) . But let us suppose for a moment that it did happen, and life was created by random chance. It would be contrary to the second law of thermodynamics for this simple living cell to evolve into a more organized, more complicated, more advanced creature, such as a multi-celled organism. Evolution would require the intervention of an intelligent, deliberate power. Only devolution (an increase in entropy) could occur naturally.
The human being is the most ordered and organized combination of natural elements on the face of the Earth. Our eyes are more complex than any man-made camera. Our nervous system is more complex and organized than the most advanced computer. Our balance and agility are unsurpassed by any mechanical device. Our individual thoughts, passions and emotions, appearance and aspirations are unique to each of the 6 billion humans that populate this planet, yet we are all made from the same basic blueprint. Human DNA is that blueprint, which represents the most ordered and organized wealth of information known to man.
It clearly violates the principles of the second law of thermodynamics for humans to have evolved from simpler, less organized life forms without the aid of an intelligent deliberate power. I call that power God. It also stands to reason that life will decay and eventually disappear entirely if neglected by God.
Evolutionists often dismiss the idea of intelligent design as religious zealotry. Universities are teaching Darwin's theory of evolution as it it were a proven fact. For those who agree with these two positions, I have two questions.
Question #1:
How did life start in the first place without outside help? Humans are not capable of producing even a simple one celled living thing from ingredients that have never lived. We have never witnessed the creation of life from ingredients that have never lived. Evolutionists have no reasonable answer to the question: How did life start in the first place, unless they rely on random chance.
Question #2:
If everything in the universe will eventually devolve, how can life evolve without outside help? Although mutations within a species have been observed, I do not believe that the evolution of a new species has ever been witnessed, although thousands of extinctions of species have been witnessed. We have seen the devolution of life, but we have never seen the evolution of life.
Creation, evolution and the size and scope of the universe are beyond current human understanding. We do not know for sure how life began or evolved. Darwin's theory is an opinion and belief based on observation. Evolution is theory, not a fact. I do not have any scientific answers. I too, only have observations, opinions and beliefs.
I saw cities and small towns in various states of decay and renewal. I saw roads in various states of decay and renewal. I saw farm houses, barns and grain silos in various states of decay and renewal. I saw railroad tracks in various states of decay and renewal. I saw telephone poles and power-lines in various states of decay and renewal. I saw fences in various states of decay and renewal. I saw bridges in various states of decay and renewal. I saw junkyards full of wrecked cars. I saw pastures with abandoned farm implements strewn about.
North Dakota was the most obvious place where I saw mother nature reclaiming all that man has built upon the land. I went to a web-site that I heard on a local radio program in ND about the numerous "ghost towns" in ND. http://www.ghostsofnorthdakota.com/ There I saw pictures and videos of various ghost towns that were in various states of decay. These pictures and videos were much like the sights that I had been seeing myself as I drove across the Midwest.
I was impressed of how the Earth had begun to reclaim everything that man had built upon it. I realized that all things that are built by man require maintenance. Without maintenance, the forces of nature will destroy and eventually remove all traces of anything that man has built. It occurred to me that it required intelligence with a purpose to build roads, buildings, bridges, fences, RR tracks, telephone poles, power lines, cars and tractors. It also occurred to me that all of these man-made structures and machinery required constant maintenance in order to keep them functioning. I saw that after they were abandoned and maintenance was no longer performed, it didn't take long for them to fall into a state of disrepair and eventually they would be reclaimed by nature, without a trace.
I saw various abandoned barns and farmhouses with their roofs caved in and their walls falling down. Some had decayed to the point that they were not much more than a pile of rubble with trees, shrubbery and grasses growing over them. Others seemed to be mostly complete structures with some broken windows and missing doors. Others were in an "in-between state" with the roof caving in, in the middle, and the walls leaning to one side.
I saw roads that were replaced by the road I was driving on. These abandoned roadways were also in various states of decay. Some were barely recognizable clearings through rocky areas. Other abandoned roadways had their concrete foundation broken into pieces and sticking up at different angles like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that didn't quite fit right. There were trees, bushes and weeds growing in the crevices between the broken pieces.
I saw abandoned railroad tracks that were buckled, broken and sticking-up in the air. There were telephone poles along these abandoned tracks that used to carry wires for signaling and switching devices. The poles were crooked, broken or laying on the ground. The wires were broken in places and drooping down to the ground in others.
I saw rotted and crumbling wooden silos, that were once used for storing grain.
I saw thousands of decaying automobile carcases in junkyards.
I saw old, rusted , decayed, obsolete tractors, combines and farm implements from days-gone-by, abandoned in cow pastures.
This experience proved the second law of thermodynamics which states that everything, in a closed system without outside influences, will decay from a state of order into a state of chaos and randomness. The measure this randomness is called entropy.
I realized that the only thing keeping structures, roads and machines operational, was the human influence of maintenance and repair. When the repair and maintenance ceased, even the strongest bridges, fences, roads and buildings would crumble to the ground in a short period of time.
It occurred to me that all these things have one thing in common. They required a purposeful and intelligent power to be brought into existence. And they continue to require a deliberate and intelligent power to remain functional. If they are neglected they will fall into disrepair, decay and eventually all traces of their existence will be gone.
It required a deliberate and intelligent power to create those houses, barns, roads, RR tracks, power lines, bridges, cars and farm implements. Their very existence is proof that order can be produced from chaos when an intelligent and deliberate power guides the process that created them. Man is that power. The moment that they are neglected by Man, they fall into disrepair, ruin, and eventually disappear entirely.
The contrast between the well maintained roads, bridges, barns, houses, RR tracks power lines, cars and farm implements, and those in various states of decay, proves that an intelligent and deliberate power is required to maintain these things and foster their usefulness and existence.
I reflected on the improvements made to the modern farm implements, which were giants compared to the relics of their ancestors. The modern RR tracks no longer had poles and signal wires alongside of them. They now used wireless communications to control lights and switches. The modern bridges required much less mass to carry heavier loads than the old fashioned bridges did. The car I was driving was air conditioned, had air-bags for safety, had stereo sound for entertainment and I was comfortably driving at 75 MPH on smooth and banked highways. The rotted wooden grain silos had been replaced by massive galvanized steel silos that stored 50 times the volume of grain as their predecessors did.
It seemed like the relics of the past were replaced with more "evolved" and better adapted specimens.
I have previously written in my article "Proof That God Exists", that the theory that life started when a lightening bolt struck a "primordial soup" that contained the right ingredients for life, was absurd. My reasoning was that a single cell is so complex and has so many moving parts and functions, that it would be more likely for a jumbo-jet, fueled up and ready to go, to emerge from that primordial soup, rather than a living organism. That is all true, but what I realize now, is that evolution is impossible unless it is guided by a deliberate and intelligent power. It requires a deliberate and intelligent power to create order out of chaos and to maintain it. A living organism is the quintessential definition of order. Without an intelligent and purposeful hand to create and maintain life, life would devolve, not evolve.
I didn't give this experience much thought until today when I came upon this article that says Ben Stein was dis-invited to speak at a commencement ceremony at the University of Vermont. This was because of students that protested his appearance because of his beliefs in "intelligent design". Here's the link: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/news/sns-ap-people-ben-stein,0,2200002.story
This article about Ben Stein, prompted me to realize the obvious fallacy in Darwin's evolutionary theory. This fallacy is proven by the second law of thermodynamics. I googled "second law of thermodynamics" to find the exact wording of the law. I was surprised to find that the first article that I went to was about the exact same theory that I already had come up with regarding evolution and entropy. Here is the link to that article entitled: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics". This article also dispels common arguments against this theory.
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
Entropy is defined as chaos, disorder, disorganization and randomness. Everything in the universe is becoming more disorganized, chaotic, disordered and random according to the second law of thermodynamics. Everything is decaying and returning to uselessness, randomness and disorder.The only exception that I can see, is when a purposeful and intelligent hand intervenes.
Manufactured things, such as houses, barns, roads, bridges, RR tracks, power lines, cars and farm implements are all examples of extremely ordered, organized things that are built and maintained by man for a specific purpose. The raw materials that were needed to build these things were deliberately removed from the "chaos" and "randomness" of nature and organized into useful objects for man's convenience, in a purposeful and intelligent manner. After Man has no more use for them and they become neglected, they begin to return back to the chaos and randomness of nature where they originally came from.
I realized that an intelligent and deliberate force, Man, was required to create order from chaos. I also noticed that the natural laws of the universe (the second law of thermodynamics) began to return these things to a state of chaos, randomness and disorder, the moment that they had become neglected by Man.
I marveled over these observations during my trip and sought out and examined all of these neglected relics of the past. I imagined what they looked like in their heyday and I understood that all things will eventually grow old, neglected and return to nature unless they are continually maintained.
It would be contrary to the second law of thermodynamics for complicated and ordered "living cell" to be created by chance from the chaos of the primordial soup, unless it was arranged by an intelligent, deliberate power (God) . But let us suppose for a moment that it did happen, and life was created by random chance. It would be contrary to the second law of thermodynamics for this simple living cell to evolve into a more organized, more complicated, more advanced creature, such as a multi-celled organism. Evolution would require the intervention of an intelligent, deliberate power. Only devolution (an increase in entropy) could occur naturally.
The human being is the most ordered and organized combination of natural elements on the face of the Earth. Our eyes are more complex than any man-made camera. Our nervous system is more complex and organized than the most advanced computer. Our balance and agility are unsurpassed by any mechanical device. Our individual thoughts, passions and emotions, appearance and aspirations are unique to each of the 6 billion humans that populate this planet, yet we are all made from the same basic blueprint. Human DNA is that blueprint, which represents the most ordered and organized wealth of information known to man.
It clearly violates the principles of the second law of thermodynamics for humans to have evolved from simpler, less organized life forms without the aid of an intelligent deliberate power. I call that power God. It also stands to reason that life will decay and eventually disappear entirely if neglected by God.
Evolutionists often dismiss the idea of intelligent design as religious zealotry. Universities are teaching Darwin's theory of evolution as it it were a proven fact. For those who agree with these two positions, I have two questions.
Question #1:
How did life start in the first place without outside help? Humans are not capable of producing even a simple one celled living thing from ingredients that have never lived. We have never witnessed the creation of life from ingredients that have never lived. Evolutionists have no reasonable answer to the question: How did life start in the first place, unless they rely on random chance.
Question #2:
If everything in the universe will eventually devolve, how can life evolve without outside help? Although mutations within a species have been observed, I do not believe that the evolution of a new species has ever been witnessed, although thousands of extinctions of species have been witnessed. We have seen the devolution of life, but we have never seen the evolution of life.
Creation, evolution and the size and scope of the universe are beyond current human understanding. We do not know for sure how life began or evolved. Darwin's theory is an opinion and belief based on observation. Evolution is theory, not a fact. I do not have any scientific answers. I too, only have observations, opinions and beliefs.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Time To Spread Some Hate?
Watch this anti-prop 8 video and let me know who is spreading hate?
This star studded, Hollywood produced music video accuses Christians and those who are in favor of Prop 8, of being haters and bigots.
In my opinion, it is equally harmful to falsely accuse people and entire religions of bigotry and hate, as to actually practice bigotry. This new type of bigotry, ruins peoples reputations, causes them to lose jobs and robs them of opportunities. Gay activist groups are now publishing "blacklists" of people and businesses who supported proposition 8, in an effort to ruin these businesses and smear the reputation of good people. This type of bigotry, hate and intimidation is often used by today's gay activists.
In this case, it is the Hollywood anti-Prop 8 crowd, who is practicing bigotry, hate and narrow-minded intolerance.
It seems to me that there is a concerted effort on the part of Hollywood and the "arts" to denigrate Christianity and celebrate homosexuality. The very same people who champion open-mindedness, diversity and tolerance are quick to smear people and groups, who they oppose.
I also noticed a couple of strong contradictions in the song. The song starts off with the lyric," It's a brand new bright Obama Day". The truth is that Barack Obama has said that he was for civil unions, but against Gay Marriage, while he was on the campaign trail.
Secondly, the song went on to say "what a time to be black, a girl or gay". However, exit polls in the recent election where "gay marriage" was overturned, showed that 70% of blacks voted for prop 8 (against gay marriage), while Christians were more evenly divided. During this particular election, there was a higher than usual black turnout at the polls. This was because many blacks were drawn out to vote because of Obama. Ironically, 70% of these blacks voted against gay marriage. Why were Christians demonized in this video, rather than Blacks? Why was Obama praised in this video, rather than demonized for bringing out the people to the polls who ultimately voted down gay marriage in California?
One more point: It seems to me that we are always being lectured by the Hollywood crowd that it is wrong to stereotype people. Can you imagine the public outcry if they stereotyped the black woman as an "Aunt Jamima" or showed the black man eating watermelon and fried chicken? Why is there no outrage for portraying Christians as stuck-up, prudish, deceptive, narrow minded, greedy and hate-filled people?
This music video, is a typical example of how the "left" gets its message out. They use emotion, above truth and reason. In the end, the elaborate, heartfelt symbolism of liberal presentations, overwhelms the substance of their opponents' reasonable arguments.
I think that this video was unnecessarily hurtful to many well intentioned good people, especially the line "Time to spread some hate". I personally know of nobody who feels that way in support of Prop 8. That line is disingenuous and hurtful. I think that frustrated gay activists vent their frustrations with their own form of hate and bigotry. There is no doubt that some gay activists hate Mormons and Christians. To hate groups based on their religious beliefs is the definition of bigotry. That video, stirs up anger. It sure made me angry, and I am neither Mormon nor Christian.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Universities Are Churning Out Intellectual But Misinformed Graduates
It saddens me to see the lack of accurate political information that is in the minds of today's students and graduates. It seems that the more our collective intelligence accumulates, the less individual wisdom we possess. Thomas Jefferson said: "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” According to Jefferson's statement, today's electorate can not be trusted.
A Zogby telephone poll was conducted of 512 Obama voters. This poll included 97% high school graduates and 55% college graduates. They were all asked 12 multiple choice questions about the presidential campaign and high level political figures in the news that relate to the presidential campaign. Most of the questions they answered incorrectly. What is astonishing is that many of the answers were answered wrong by over 75% of the respondents, and there were only 4 choices given. This means that they answered them worse that if they had guessed. The only conclusion one can arrive at, is that they have been receiving deceptive, manipulative and biased information.
This study confirms my strong beliefs that the public schools, universities, the media and the arts profoundly distort the views of today's popular culture by purposely filtering the information that they disseminate.
Click on the link below to view this shocking video of well educated Obama voters, who are totally ignorant of many of the top issues regarding the recent presidential campaign.
http://howobamagotelected.com/
This video and poll are no surprise to me. I have been writing on my blog, for a long time, about how the public schools, universities, the media and the arts have been deceptive, manipulative and biased. The clearest example of this is the global warming theory. I find it amazing that an unproven theory, that defies common sense, is being taught in our schools and universities, as if it was a well established scientific fact.
These days, when I see college students, I do not admire them for their quest for knowledge because the majority are lacking in wisdom. They follow a heard mentality toward whatever is considered to be cool, offensive to conservatives and in opposition to "love of God", family and country. They have been brainwashed to believe that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue. Thus they celebrate and embrace the most negative and bizarre forms of diversity. Often they are rewarded for this by respect, admiration and love from their peers, teachers and parent(s).
Most universities, media, and artists; question, reject and vilify, anything that supports our traditional American culture. They do not accept the premise that America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that the world has ever seen. They use convoluted logic, quote questionable statistics, take quotes out of context, either suppress or emphasize various information and use emotion to make their arguments, but they overlook the obvious truth, reason and common sense. Often they use examples which are the "least likely scenario". They often vilify their ideological opponents with charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, and greed. Often this tactic is successful in silencing their opposition. These tactics work best for them , because reason, commonsense and personal experience are often not compatible with their conclusions. What is most troubling, is that an honest search for truth is rarely seen.
I see the bricks, that form the foundation of this nation's greatness, being removed one by one. We are on the road to becoming a third rate corrupt and poor nation, like Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela. It is sad to see this happening before my very eyes. What is saddest, is that this downhill spiral, from American exceptionalism to economic and spiritual bankruptcy, is being led by today’s students and the universities, media and artists, that fill their heads with propaganda which they call "progressive".
A Zogby telephone poll was conducted of 512 Obama voters. This poll included 97% high school graduates and 55% college graduates. They were all asked 12 multiple choice questions about the presidential campaign and high level political figures in the news that relate to the presidential campaign. Most of the questions they answered incorrectly. What is astonishing is that many of the answers were answered wrong by over 75% of the respondents, and there were only 4 choices given. This means that they answered them worse that if they had guessed. The only conclusion one can arrive at, is that they have been receiving deceptive, manipulative and biased information.
This study confirms my strong beliefs that the public schools, universities, the media and the arts profoundly distort the views of today's popular culture by purposely filtering the information that they disseminate.
Click on the link below to view this shocking video of well educated Obama voters, who are totally ignorant of many of the top issues regarding the recent presidential campaign.
http://howobamagotelected.com/
This video and poll are no surprise to me. I have been writing on my blog, for a long time, about how the public schools, universities, the media and the arts have been deceptive, manipulative and biased. The clearest example of this is the global warming theory. I find it amazing that an unproven theory, that defies common sense, is being taught in our schools and universities, as if it was a well established scientific fact.
These days, when I see college students, I do not admire them for their quest for knowledge because the majority are lacking in wisdom. They follow a heard mentality toward whatever is considered to be cool, offensive to conservatives and in opposition to "love of God", family and country. They have been brainwashed to believe that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue. Thus they celebrate and embrace the most negative and bizarre forms of diversity. Often they are rewarded for this by respect, admiration and love from their peers, teachers and parent(s).
Most universities, media, and artists; question, reject and vilify, anything that supports our traditional American culture. They do not accept the premise that America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that the world has ever seen. They use convoluted logic, quote questionable statistics, take quotes out of context, either suppress or emphasize various information and use emotion to make their arguments, but they overlook the obvious truth, reason and common sense. Often they use examples which are the "least likely scenario". They often vilify their ideological opponents with charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, and greed. Often this tactic is successful in silencing their opposition. These tactics work best for them , because reason, commonsense and personal experience are often not compatible with their conclusions. What is most troubling, is that an honest search for truth is rarely seen.
I see the bricks, that form the foundation of this nation's greatness, being removed one by one. We are on the road to becoming a third rate corrupt and poor nation, like Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela. It is sad to see this happening before my very eyes. What is saddest, is that this downhill spiral, from American exceptionalism to economic and spiritual bankruptcy, is being led by today’s students and the universities, media and artists, that fill their heads with propaganda which they call "progressive".
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Is Charitable Giving On The Rise?
In today's day and age, politicians are preaching that it is patriotic to pay taxes and that "rich people" have an obligation tho share their wealth. However, I believe that that true charitable giving only exists when it is done voluntarily. Today's forced charities, through taxpayer financed social programs, are crowding out many genuine charities from helping people on a voluntary and personal level. Forced giving, through high taxes and government social programs, embitters both the givers and receivers, who feel resentment for the other group.
I have heard statistics that claim that charitable giving has increased over the past 40 years, this does not seem to ring true based on my personal observations. Statistics can be manipulated and used by people who do not debate in good faith, because they know that their statistics have loopholes.
The following are examples of voluntary charitable contributions that I witnessed 30 years ago. These examples may not have not shown up on any tax returns or ledger sheets, and may not be included in statistical studies on charitable giving. I can not prove or disprove their affect on the "charitable giving" statistics, however, they are surly omitted.
Thirty years ago,I spent a year in The Dalles Oregon, working on a farm. The majority of local people attended church every Sunday. The tradition of tithing was often discussed, and I believe that most parishioners practiced this tradition. This tradition requires that congregants donate 1/10th of their income to the church. This charitable giving is provable by tax records in many cases. However, many people believe that charitable giving should be a completely selfless act. These people choose not to report their donations on their tax returns, because they want their act of charitable giving be untarnished by benefiting from a tax deduction.
Also, I personally witnessed several physical acts of charity that were not likely to show up on a tax form or ledger sheet. One example is when the Church Pastor asked Charlie S (the farm owner that I was living with), if he could help out a homeless trio (a husband, wife and brother). These people were drifters, who's junk car finally "died" in The Dalles. They had no where to live and no money. They went to local Churches daily for food and clothing.
Mr. S put this trio up in a vacant "pickers shack" on his farm, equipped with 2 beds, a wood burning stove and a refrigerator. Mr. S offered them work, not because he was shorthanded, but because he wanted to help them get on their feet by their own efforts. The wages that Mr. S payed this trio did not show up anywhere as a charitable contribution, but that is exactly what they were.
Another example of heartfelt yet unreported charitable giving, was when Mr. S's brother, who was an accountant, flied my delinquent tax return for me without charge. I told him that I did not file my tax return for the previous 2 years, but I was sure that I was entitled to a refund. Mr. S's brother did my taxes for me, without asking for any compensation. Several weeks later I received a nice check from the IRS.
Another example is that their "Church's School" wanted to construct a running track around their ball field. The most expensive cost of its construction was the several hundred tons of red clay required to pave the track with. The Church found a clay Quarry that was willing to donate the quantity of clay needed, but the Church would have to find a way to transport it. The pastor called many of his parishioners who owned various medium and heavy duty trucks, capable of picking up and delivering small quantities of clay. Mr. S agreed to help the Church transport the clay.
Mr. S owned a small dump truck that he used for picking up grain and seeds and delivering manure. I "rode shotgun" with Mr. S's son when we spent an entire Saturday, making several trips, to and from, the far off quarry. We could only haul about 7 tons on each load. Mr. S spent over a hundred of dollars on fuel and we had a tire blow out on our last load, which cost hundreds to repair. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that Charlie S claimed these expenses as charitable donations. We were not alone, there was a whole fleet of trucks doing the same thing as us. By the end of the Day, the clay had been delivered.
On the other hand, some of today's charities are scams, that spend a much of their income on salaries and operating costs. Other charities are little more than political organizations, that are pushing a political agenda. ACORN comes to mind. There are also, non-profit organizations that are a front for terrorist organizations. They funnel funds to terrorists overseas. Donations to these organizations, show up as charitable donations in statistical reports. There are also many charitable contributions to causes that claim to be fighting global warming. Global warming is a threat that is not proved to be real, yet these donations show up as charitable contributions, even though their benefit is questionable. Also, many people donate unusable items, such as broken down cars, trucks and boats, and torn clothing or worn out underwear, for the express purpose of receiving a tax deduction. I would not consider these examples as charity, but they are included in statistics.
I believe that voluntary charity is beneficial to both the giver and the receiver. Charitable giving uplifts one's spirit and strengthens one's soul. When the relationship between giver and receiver is personal and genuine, everyone benefits.
I have heard statistics that claim that charitable giving has increased over the past 40 years, this does not seem to ring true based on my personal observations. Statistics can be manipulated and used by people who do not debate in good faith, because they know that their statistics have loopholes.
The following are examples of voluntary charitable contributions that I witnessed 30 years ago. These examples may not have not shown up on any tax returns or ledger sheets, and may not be included in statistical studies on charitable giving. I can not prove or disprove their affect on the "charitable giving" statistics, however, they are surly omitted.
Thirty years ago,I spent a year in The Dalles Oregon, working on a farm. The majority of local people attended church every Sunday. The tradition of tithing was often discussed, and I believe that most parishioners practiced this tradition. This tradition requires that congregants donate 1/10th of their income to the church. This charitable giving is provable by tax records in many cases. However, many people believe that charitable giving should be a completely selfless act. These people choose not to report their donations on their tax returns, because they want their act of charitable giving be untarnished by benefiting from a tax deduction.
Also, I personally witnessed several physical acts of charity that were not likely to show up on a tax form or ledger sheet. One example is when the Church Pastor asked Charlie S (the farm owner that I was living with), if he could help out a homeless trio (a husband, wife and brother). These people were drifters, who's junk car finally "died" in The Dalles. They had no where to live and no money. They went to local Churches daily for food and clothing.
Mr. S put this trio up in a vacant "pickers shack" on his farm, equipped with 2 beds, a wood burning stove and a refrigerator. Mr. S offered them work, not because he was shorthanded, but because he wanted to help them get on their feet by their own efforts. The wages that Mr. S payed this trio did not show up anywhere as a charitable contribution, but that is exactly what they were.
Another example of heartfelt yet unreported charitable giving, was when Mr. S's brother, who was an accountant, flied my delinquent tax return for me without charge. I told him that I did not file my tax return for the previous 2 years, but I was sure that I was entitled to a refund. Mr. S's brother did my taxes for me, without asking for any compensation. Several weeks later I received a nice check from the IRS.
Another example is that their "Church's School" wanted to construct a running track around their ball field. The most expensive cost of its construction was the several hundred tons of red clay required to pave the track with. The Church found a clay Quarry that was willing to donate the quantity of clay needed, but the Church would have to find a way to transport it. The pastor called many of his parishioners who owned various medium and heavy duty trucks, capable of picking up and delivering small quantities of clay. Mr. S agreed to help the Church transport the clay.
Mr. S owned a small dump truck that he used for picking up grain and seeds and delivering manure. I "rode shotgun" with Mr. S's son when we spent an entire Saturday, making several trips, to and from, the far off quarry. We could only haul about 7 tons on each load. Mr. S spent over a hundred of dollars on fuel and we had a tire blow out on our last load, which cost hundreds to repair. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that Charlie S claimed these expenses as charitable donations. We were not alone, there was a whole fleet of trucks doing the same thing as us. By the end of the Day, the clay had been delivered.
On the other hand, some of today's charities are scams, that spend a much of their income on salaries and operating costs. Other charities are little more than political organizations, that are pushing a political agenda. ACORN comes to mind. There are also, non-profit organizations that are a front for terrorist organizations. They funnel funds to terrorists overseas. Donations to these organizations, show up as charitable donations in statistical reports. There are also many charitable contributions to causes that claim to be fighting global warming. Global warming is a threat that is not proved to be real, yet these donations show up as charitable contributions, even though their benefit is questionable. Also, many people donate unusable items, such as broken down cars, trucks and boats, and torn clothing or worn out underwear, for the express purpose of receiving a tax deduction. I would not consider these examples as charity, but they are included in statistics.
I believe that voluntary charity is beneficial to both the giver and the receiver. Charitable giving uplifts one's spirit and strengthens one's soul. When the relationship between giver and receiver is personal and genuine, everyone benefits.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Feminizing of Society
Children being brought up by homosexuals, may be no better off than those raised by a single mom or single dad. Men and women are distinctly different. It takes both the strength and reason of a father, and the nurturing, care and emotional support of a mother to raise a healthy child. Of course this is the ideal, and no family lives up to it, but children that grow up in an overly feminine or masculine family, are not in balance in their reason and emotion.
In today's popular culture, single moms and homosexuals who raise children, are becoming more common and more widely accepted. This explains why our society is becoming "feminized".
Feminine attributes have come to be considered more important than masculine attributes because so many families are fatherless, and many children are primarily influenced by females. This puts our society out of balance. Masculine and feminine attributes complement each other and help produce balanced children.
Examples of feminine attributes include: empathy, appreciation for art, beauty and style, tenderness and nurturing support.
Masculine attributes include: discipline, strength, reason, and competitiveness.
There are also detriments pertaining to each sex, these need to be restrained by the opposite sex. detriments for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Detriments common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.
Of course these are only generalizations, but by and large, they are accurate. For example: Far less women are in prison than men. You see far more men in prison for violent and sexually aggressive crimes than women. Common crimes that women commit are prostitution, shoplifting and credit-card or check fraud. Far more women are single parents than men. Far more women teach grade-school than men. Men are more common teachers in high school. Far more men are tradesman than women. Far more women are involved in fashion, design and service jobs such as waitress and haircutting. Of course you can find exceptions, but my examples include the overwhelming majority.
In today's popular culture, single moms and homosexuals who raise children, are becoming more common and more widely accepted. This explains why our society is becoming "feminized".
Feminine attributes have come to be considered more important than masculine attributes because so many families are fatherless, and many children are primarily influenced by females. This puts our society out of balance. Masculine and feminine attributes complement each other and help produce balanced children.
Examples of feminine attributes include: empathy, appreciation for art, beauty and style, tenderness and nurturing support.
Masculine attributes include: discipline, strength, reason, and competitiveness.
There are also detriments pertaining to each sex, these need to be restrained by the opposite sex. detriments for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Detriments common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.
Of course these are only generalizations, but by and large, they are accurate. For example: Far less women are in prison than men. You see far more men in prison for violent and sexually aggressive crimes than women. Common crimes that women commit are prostitution, shoplifting and credit-card or check fraud. Far more women are single parents than men. Far more women teach grade-school than men. Men are more common teachers in high school. Far more men are tradesman than women. Far more women are involved in fashion, design and service jobs such as waitress and haircutting. Of course you can find exceptions, but my examples include the overwhelming majority.
This is not due to discrimination or stereotyping, these are the choices that men and women make based on their preferences, natural instincts and desires. The point is that men and women are intrinsically different in their strengths and weaknesses. Men and women serve to complement and restrain each-other in an ideal family. A family that does not include both feminine and masculine influences, will result in children that are out of balance in some way.
Currently, I see our society out of balance in favor of femininity over masculinity. The problem with this is that the negative aspects of femininity are not restrained by male attributes, while the positive attributes of the male are not as widely encouraged as the natural feminine attributes. Examples are:
- Natural male aggressiveness, curiosity and mischievousness is discouraged. Boys that act too much like boys, are often diagnosed with ADD and subdued with psychotropic medications such as Ritalin.
- In the past, it was usually the fathers role to physically discipline children. It was the mothers role to protect them. In today's feminized culture, corporal punishment of children has been stigmatized and outlawed in most cases. Everyone protects children, but no one is likely to discipline them.
- Men are encouraged to be more sensitive. They are told that it is OK for men to cry.
- Competition is discouraged. In school sports, most all participants are recognized with awards and trophies, whether they are on the winning or losing team.
- Men are becoming more vane with regards to their physical appearance. It has become commonplace for men to wear jewelry, dye their hair and wear sexy clothing.
- Seductive clothing and behavior is unrestrained in both women and men.
- Today's popular culture has a mother's instinct, who wants her children to be safe at all costs. Our soldiers are regarded as victims, rather than courageous heroes, willing to risk their lives in a selfless effort to protect women and children on the home front for a noble cause greater than themselves.
- Often, honesty plays second fiddle to self-esteem. Dishonesty is OK if it spares hurt feelings. Self esteem often trumps brutal honesty, regardless of the unintended consequences.
- Often, political persuasion relies heavily on emotion, rather than reason. Symbolism over substance is the mainstay of many political campaigns. Slogans such as "I can feel your pain" or I stand for "hope" are common political rhetoric.
- Creating class envy between rich and poor, minority and majority, men and women, gay and straight, legal citizen and illegal alien, have become common political strategies. Jealousy and envy are emotions that are often played upon by a feminized society.
- Often, TV shows and commercials portray women as cool, smart and stylish, while traditional men are portrayed as clumsy and stupid. But, if the men are feminized in appearance and emotional sensitivity, they are also portrayed as cool and smart.
- Hunting, fishing ,eating meat, and using animals' hides for clothing, is often considered cruelty to animals. A more sensitive, emotional and feminized approach, is not to harm any living thing.
Again, I'm sure that you can find exceptions, but the current trend is definitely moving toward femininity and away from masculinity. This imbalance will leave feminine shortcomings to go unchecked and will also place restraint on masculine strengths. This shift can only weaken, impoverish and reduce the freedoms that are only possible and practical for "humanity in balance".
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Character and Adversity
During the great depression of the 1930's, the crime rate was relatively low despite 30% unemployment and widespread poverty. The reason for the low crime rate was that people, for the most part, believed in a power greater than themselves and practiced spiritual principles. I have heard many stories from the great depression era where a child would steal food, and bring it home to share with his hungry family. In most cases, the child was admonished by his parents and instructed to return the food to it's rightful owner and admit to, and apologize for his shameful thievery, while his family went hungry that night. The child was punished so that he might learn the lesson that "one's character" is his most valuable asset in the eyes of God and his fellow human beings. This generation of Americans grew up to be called "the greatest generation" and went on to make sacrifices on the battlefield and back home, during the second world war. Their sacrifice led to peace and prosperity for the next generation, the "baby-boomers".
On the other hand, today's generation, for the most part, does not know the meaning of true sacrifice, self-discipline, restraint, patience, "God" and "reward in heaven". Their whole life has been spent during a period of peace and prosperity. Even today's so-called poor, have all of life's necessities and many luxuries, provided for them. We live in a time material prosperity combined with spiritual bankruptcy.
Should our economy slip into a depression on the scale of the great depression of the thirties, I predict that widespread looting, lawlessness and anarchy will result from a generation that was never taught that are things more important than beauty, intellect, physical talent, popularity, personal success, happiness and self-esteem. We will be selfishly fighting over food, fuel and the scraps of a once great society.
How will you react if a deep depression strikes our country? True character always comes to light during times of adversity. I hope that Americans will rise to the occasion, if adversity strikes. However, without enduring spiritual principles to guide us, we will likely turn into collection of angry mobs who are just out for ourselves, our kin and our kind, during a lasting period of hardship where food is scarce.
However, adversity might be the thing that is needed to temper our collective souls and bring us back to the principles that made our nation and our people great during past periods of nation-wide hardship.
On the other hand, today's generation, for the most part, does not know the meaning of true sacrifice, self-discipline, restraint, patience, "God" and "reward in heaven". Their whole life has been spent during a period of peace and prosperity. Even today's so-called poor, have all of life's necessities and many luxuries, provided for them. We live in a time material prosperity combined with spiritual bankruptcy.
Should our economy slip into a depression on the scale of the great depression of the thirties, I predict that widespread looting, lawlessness and anarchy will result from a generation that was never taught that are things more important than beauty, intellect, physical talent, popularity, personal success, happiness and self-esteem. We will be selfishly fighting over food, fuel and the scraps of a once great society.
How will you react if a deep depression strikes our country? True character always comes to light during times of adversity. I hope that Americans will rise to the occasion, if adversity strikes. However, without enduring spiritual principles to guide us, we will likely turn into collection of angry mobs who are just out for ourselves, our kin and our kind, during a lasting period of hardship where food is scarce.
However, adversity might be the thing that is needed to temper our collective souls and bring us back to the principles that made our nation and our people great during past periods of nation-wide hardship.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Should We Legalize Crack or Outlaw Ritalin?
I don't think that legalizing drugs is a good idea. I believe that legitimizing psychotropic medications, whether legal or illegal, will have negative unintended consequences. I spelled out some of the negative consequences that have arisen from the medical and pharmaceutical industries pushing medications on the general public in an article called "Legal Drug Pushers and Their Victims". Also, not mentioned in this article, are millions of children that are now being put on Ritalin and other stimulants to treat so called attention deficit disorder (ADD) in an effort to control unruly behavior by school-age children.
I believe that a feminized school system is attempting to reduce boys' natural unruly, defiant, masculine nature with medication. The unintended consequence, is to stifle the natural inquisitive, adventurous, and mischievous behavior of young men. Albert Einstein was unable to concentrate on his schoolwork as a boy, he got bad grades and was quite restless. If Ritalin was available during Albert Einsteins youth, he could very well been diagnosed with ADD and putt on on this medication. This would have undoubtedly have affected his creativity and intellectual curiosity. If Einstein had been medicated as a child, he may never have made the discoveries which have had a profound positive impact on our country, and humanity. I think that encouraging and legitimizing the use of psychotropic medications, will have unintended consequences beyond our current understanding. Perhaps these unintended consequences would limit our ability to stand up to, and defeat, the "bad elements" in our global society. Another unintended consequence could be that we become, as a nation, one of these "bad elements". This is likely to happen if we drift away from the universal spiritual principles that this country was founded upon, and become a nation of people who chase thrills and pleasures, and seek to avoid confrontation and unpleasantness at all costs. Well intentioned liberals and libertarians often seek a quick fix, without considering the unforeseen and unintended negative consequences.
While an active member in the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous (NA), I learned that drug addiction is a physical, mental and spiritual illness. The physical nature of the disease is the physical addiction. Physical addiction causes withdrawal symptoms, physical discomfort, and sometimes severe illness if you stop taking the drug. The mental aspect of the disease of addiction, leads the addict to continually make the same mistakes and expect different results. There is no rational or reasonable explanation for taking the risks that we do, yet no matter how severe the consequences, we continue to use drugs and put our families, our freedom and even our own lives in jeopardy. Although our lives are clearly unmanageable, we are often in complete denial of our apparent circumstance. The spiritual nature of addiction is the most insidious. We learned that we were addicts long before we took our first drink, drug or pill. Spiritual bankruptcy accompanies active drug addiction. This is is what allows us to do whatever it takes, to get our next fix. As practicing addicts, our whole life centers around the using of drugs and finding the ways and means to get more. As addicts we lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, deceive people, use people and put people around us in danger in order to get our next fix. Some of us have killed or rapped as a consequence of our addiction. There is no bottom the the depths of the spiritual depravity of an active drug addict. I have heard many personal stories in NA, and I have shared my own. Many of these aspects of addiction are true in all the stories that I have heard including my own.
The ongoing recovery offered by NA is based on spirituality as spelled out in the twelve steps and the twelve traditions of Narcotics Anonymous. In NA, we come to understand how our lives have become unmanageable. We come to see how drugs controlled every aspect of our lives. We were out of control. We had no control. Drugs had all control and power over us. At the same time we were powerless to stop using drugs. We tried to stop on our own over and over again but we couldn't. We were powerless. We could not stop or control our using them and once we were under the influence we could not control our actions. Our whole life centered around getting and using drugs and finding the ways and means to get more. After attending NA meetings for a period of time,with a sponsor, it became clear to me that drugs are a power greater than myself. The solution that NA offered was to believe that another power greater than myself could restore me to sanity. That power is God. I was taught to "Let go and let God". Don't fight it, just do God's will and all will be well. Basically those are the first 3 of the 12 steps in the NA or AA program. God is mentioned in most of the steps. The other 9 steps deal with practical ways that you can do God's will. First by taking a personal inventory, next by asking God to remove our shortcomings, then, when we were wrong we promptly admitting it, then making a list of people we have harmed and making amends to them all and then by helping other addicts get and stay clean. Thus, when your words and actions are in line with God's will, you will have serenity. Basically that is the NA program in a nutshell.
NA is a spiritual program, based on an all powerful God. NA and AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) have the best track record of success with drug and alcohol problems? Every rehab that I have been in, and I've been in about a dozen over the years, include NA or AA meetings as part of their treatment and they strongly recommend continuation of AA or NA meetings after leaving the program. Many drug and alcohol offenders are required by the courts to attend these spiritually based meetings as part of their probation. I was court ordered on several occasions. When the public sees Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan go off to rehab, do they know that the treatment is based on spirituality and a belief in God? Why is there no outrage on the part of the liberals and atheists because the state (the court) is ordering offenders to attend a spiritual program based on an all powerful God? Perhaps because the program works, but I think that the more likely reason is that the program is anonymous and it is not widely publicized that these programs are based on spiritual principles and God.
I know from my own 25 year experience as an active drug addict, that drug addiction is a spiritual disease, with serious consequences for the addict and everyone that he comes in contact with. I believe that widespread use of drugs in the US is only possible due to the spiritual depravity that is widespread in our nation. As with most problems, a solution that addresses the root cause of the problem is most effective. Legalizing and legitimizing drug use in our country will only exacerbate the spiritual depravity that we are experiencing and will undoubtedly lead to unforeseen, negative consequences. Addressing the spiritual depravity in our nation is the solution that I think will be most effective in fighting drug addiction. This solution will reduce the demand for illegal narcotics as well as reducing the widespread use of legal psychotropic medications . This is the only solution that has been proved to work as demonstrated by the fellowships of Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous.
The US has grown into a situation of unprecedented economic abundance, coupled with spiritual depravity. This is what has led us to be the leading consumer of illicit drugs as well as legal psychotropic medications. This unique situation can not and will not be self sustaining. We must grow spiritually, as individuals and as a nation, or we will lose our individual and collective prosperity as well as our freedom.
I believe that a feminized school system is attempting to reduce boys' natural unruly, defiant, masculine nature with medication. The unintended consequence, is to stifle the natural inquisitive, adventurous, and mischievous behavior of young men. Albert Einstein was unable to concentrate on his schoolwork as a boy, he got bad grades and was quite restless. If Ritalin was available during Albert Einsteins youth, he could very well been diagnosed with ADD and putt on on this medication. This would have undoubtedly have affected his creativity and intellectual curiosity. If Einstein had been medicated as a child, he may never have made the discoveries which have had a profound positive impact on our country, and humanity. I think that encouraging and legitimizing the use of psychotropic medications, will have unintended consequences beyond our current understanding. Perhaps these unintended consequences would limit our ability to stand up to, and defeat, the "bad elements" in our global society. Another unintended consequence could be that we become, as a nation, one of these "bad elements". This is likely to happen if we drift away from the universal spiritual principles that this country was founded upon, and become a nation of people who chase thrills and pleasures, and seek to avoid confrontation and unpleasantness at all costs. Well intentioned liberals and libertarians often seek a quick fix, without considering the unforeseen and unintended negative consequences.
While an active member in the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous (NA), I learned that drug addiction is a physical, mental and spiritual illness. The physical nature of the disease is the physical addiction. Physical addiction causes withdrawal symptoms, physical discomfort, and sometimes severe illness if you stop taking the drug. The mental aspect of the disease of addiction, leads the addict to continually make the same mistakes and expect different results. There is no rational or reasonable explanation for taking the risks that we do, yet no matter how severe the consequences, we continue to use drugs and put our families, our freedom and even our own lives in jeopardy. Although our lives are clearly unmanageable, we are often in complete denial of our apparent circumstance. The spiritual nature of addiction is the most insidious. We learned that we were addicts long before we took our first drink, drug or pill. Spiritual bankruptcy accompanies active drug addiction. This is is what allows us to do whatever it takes, to get our next fix. As practicing addicts, our whole life centers around the using of drugs and finding the ways and means to get more. As addicts we lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, deceive people, use people and put people around us in danger in order to get our next fix. Some of us have killed or rapped as a consequence of our addiction. There is no bottom the the depths of the spiritual depravity of an active drug addict. I have heard many personal stories in NA, and I have shared my own. Many of these aspects of addiction are true in all the stories that I have heard including my own.
The ongoing recovery offered by NA is based on spirituality as spelled out in the twelve steps and the twelve traditions of Narcotics Anonymous. In NA, we come to understand how our lives have become unmanageable. We come to see how drugs controlled every aspect of our lives. We were out of control. We had no control. Drugs had all control and power over us. At the same time we were powerless to stop using drugs. We tried to stop on our own over and over again but we couldn't. We were powerless. We could not stop or control our using them and once we were under the influence we could not control our actions. Our whole life centered around getting and using drugs and finding the ways and means to get more. After attending NA meetings for a period of time,with a sponsor, it became clear to me that drugs are a power greater than myself. The solution that NA offered was to believe that another power greater than myself could restore me to sanity. That power is God. I was taught to "Let go and let God". Don't fight it, just do God's will and all will be well. Basically those are the first 3 of the 12 steps in the NA or AA program. God is mentioned in most of the steps. The other 9 steps deal with practical ways that you can do God's will. First by taking a personal inventory, next by asking God to remove our shortcomings, then, when we were wrong we promptly admitting it, then making a list of people we have harmed and making amends to them all and then by helping other addicts get and stay clean. Thus, when your words and actions are in line with God's will, you will have serenity. Basically that is the NA program in a nutshell.
NA is a spiritual program, based on an all powerful God. NA and AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) have the best track record of success with drug and alcohol problems? Every rehab that I have been in, and I've been in about a dozen over the years, include NA or AA meetings as part of their treatment and they strongly recommend continuation of AA or NA meetings after leaving the program. Many drug and alcohol offenders are required by the courts to attend these spiritually based meetings as part of their probation. I was court ordered on several occasions. When the public sees Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan go off to rehab, do they know that the treatment is based on spirituality and a belief in God? Why is there no outrage on the part of the liberals and atheists because the state (the court) is ordering offenders to attend a spiritual program based on an all powerful God? Perhaps because the program works, but I think that the more likely reason is that the program is anonymous and it is not widely publicized that these programs are based on spiritual principles and God.
I know from my own 25 year experience as an active drug addict, that drug addiction is a spiritual disease, with serious consequences for the addict and everyone that he comes in contact with. I believe that widespread use of drugs in the US is only possible due to the spiritual depravity that is widespread in our nation. As with most problems, a solution that addresses the root cause of the problem is most effective. Legalizing and legitimizing drug use in our country will only exacerbate the spiritual depravity that we are experiencing and will undoubtedly lead to unforeseen, negative consequences. Addressing the spiritual depravity in our nation is the solution that I think will be most effective in fighting drug addiction. This solution will reduce the demand for illegal narcotics as well as reducing the widespread use of legal psychotropic medications . This is the only solution that has been proved to work as demonstrated by the fellowships of Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous.
The US has grown into a situation of unprecedented economic abundance, coupled with spiritual depravity. This is what has led us to be the leading consumer of illicit drugs as well as legal psychotropic medications. This unique situation can not and will not be self sustaining. We must grow spiritually, as individuals and as a nation, or we will lose our individual and collective prosperity as well as our freedom.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
An Irrefutable Case Against Abortion
Recently I spoke with a liberal woman distressing over the recent VP choice of John McCain. Although his VP pick was a woman, Sarah Palin, this liberal woman lamented that Palin was a horrible choice because she was against abortion. My sarcastic yet concise response was " you are right, we need more abortions". She had no comeback and I said no more, but I thought about it.
I came to the conclusion that choosing an abortion is an extremely selfish act. Three of the many spiritual principles that I frequently mention are "courage, selflessness and self-sacrifice". A woman who chooses to have an abortion is committing one of the most cowardly and selfish acts that I can think of. Abortion trumps child abandonment and child abuse, because the child has no chance. It is tantamount to killing another soul because he/she interferes with your own plans and dreams for your future.
Even in cases where a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape, the child could be the one good thing to come from this horrific act. I have heard from children born from rape, who have grown up to lead happy productive lives due to their mothers courage, selflessness and self-sacrifice.
The authors of our Constitution and subsequent amendments, had no intention of legitimizing the snuffing out of human lives through abortion. Proponents of abortion rights often claim that a woman's right to choose is spelled out in the fourteenth amendment. I have read that amendment over and over again. I see no such words or intentions in the fourteenth amendment. Often liberals and feminized men and women make judgment based on emotions, rather than reason. The pro-choice lobby, as well as their lawyers, use convoluted reasoning to justify their selfish views. Only in a society where the ends justify the means and spiritual principles are trivialized as unnecessary impediments, can the highest court in the land rule that abortion is justified by the fourteenth amendment which states: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There is no question that as a result of the Roe Vs. Wade decision, forty million people have been "deprived of life", through the implementation of legal abortion.
Also, many states have enacted laws that charge assailants with murder, for the assault of pregnant women that results in the death of her unborn fetus. Harriet Ryan from Court TV wrote: There are fetal homicide laws on the books in more than two dozen states, but they vary widely. In some states, such as Missouri and Minnesota, a fetus is considered a living thing at conception. In others, like Georgia and Michigan, a fetus is only protected after "quickening" — when movement is first felt in the womb — occurs.
These laws are clearly inconsistent with federal law that claim an unborn fetus is not yet a human life. However, I have yet to hear any feminists or pro-abortion rights groups protest against these laws, which give unborn fetuses protection under the law. This inconsistency clearly proves that pro-abortion proponents are basing their arguments on emotion, based on selfishness, rather than on the spiritual principles of courage and selflessness.
I came to the conclusion that choosing an abortion is an extremely selfish act. Three of the many spiritual principles that I frequently mention are "courage, selflessness and self-sacrifice". A woman who chooses to have an abortion is committing one of the most cowardly and selfish acts that I can think of. Abortion trumps child abandonment and child abuse, because the child has no chance. It is tantamount to killing another soul because he/she interferes with your own plans and dreams for your future.
Even in cases where a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape, the child could be the one good thing to come from this horrific act. I have heard from children born from rape, who have grown up to lead happy productive lives due to their mothers courage, selflessness and self-sacrifice.
The authors of our Constitution and subsequent amendments, had no intention of legitimizing the snuffing out of human lives through abortion. Proponents of abortion rights often claim that a woman's right to choose is spelled out in the fourteenth amendment. I have read that amendment over and over again. I see no such words or intentions in the fourteenth amendment. Often liberals and feminized men and women make judgment based on emotions, rather than reason. The pro-choice lobby, as well as their lawyers, use convoluted reasoning to justify their selfish views. Only in a society where the ends justify the means and spiritual principles are trivialized as unnecessary impediments, can the highest court in the land rule that abortion is justified by the fourteenth amendment which states: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There is no question that as a result of the Roe Vs. Wade decision, forty million people have been "deprived of life", through the implementation of legal abortion.
Also, many states have enacted laws that charge assailants with murder, for the assault of pregnant women that results in the death of her unborn fetus. Harriet Ryan from Court TV wrote: There are fetal homicide laws on the books in more than two dozen states, but they vary widely. In some states, such as Missouri and Minnesota, a fetus is considered a living thing at conception. In others, like Georgia and Michigan, a fetus is only protected after "quickening" — when movement is first felt in the womb — occurs.
These laws are clearly inconsistent with federal law that claim an unborn fetus is not yet a human life. However, I have yet to hear any feminists or pro-abortion rights groups protest against these laws, which give unborn fetuses protection under the law. This inconsistency clearly proves that pro-abortion proponents are basing their arguments on emotion, based on selfishness, rather than on the spiritual principles of courage and selflessness.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Freedom Prospers When Religion Is Vibrant
There are many reasons why thriving civilizations fail, however, three examples of the failure of societies at the height of their wealth and power are: the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire and the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although I am not a historical or biblical scholar, I believe that these prosperous civilizations were at the height of their immorality, debauchery and open homosexuality at the time of their demise.
A democracy can not sustain itself upon the view of the majority alone. It is quite obvious that views held by the majority are not necessarily proved as correct. There are countless examples, including that at one time, the vast majority of people believed that the Earth was flat. A democracy can only sustain itself if it is built upon a moral base which is founded upon universal spiritual principles, otherwise it will devolve into "mob-rule". An example would be the Palestinian democracy in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians democratically elected the terrorist group "Hamas" to lead their country. Once in power, they began to fire rockets into Israel, while ignoring their peoples needs for food, infrastructure (sewers, electricity, etc.), and productive work. This would not occur, in a democracy restrained by spiritual principles. Democracy without moral restraint, will not bring about freedom, peace and prosperity.
I often hear liberals claim that you can not legislate morality. This is preposterous. Most of our laws that our country was founded on were based on principles that are spelled out in the "Ten Commandments". We still honor most laws against lying, cheating , stealing and murdering which are moral principles that are laid out in the Ten Commandments. Up until recently we had laws against adultery, sodomy and doing business on the Sabbath. In my opinion, the decay we are seeing in morality is attributable to our society becoming more secular and less religious. Although I am not religious in the traditional sense, I do have a strong belief in God, the eternal soul and divine judgment. If these principles are removed or diminished from the American culture, I can see no other outcome than the demise of our unique American culture and the fall of our great nation.
I often hear liberals say that this country was founded in sin, due to slavery. To the contrary, the "Declaration if Independence", our Constitution and our "Bill of Rights" were based on spiritual principles and written in such a way that would eventually lead to the end of slavery. 750,000 men gave their lives in our most bloody war which resulted in the end of slavery. Please read the lyrics to all five verses of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic", which was a famous marching song of the Civil War. This hymn brings tears to my eyes because it puts morality and God above life itself. Years later, it was Christian leaders who started the civil rights movement which successfully removed discrimination, based on race, from our laws and our culture.
Click here for the lyrics: "Battle Hymn of the Republic"
Click here for a short article about the hymn's history.
For a real tear-jerking experience, click on the video below and listen to the the US Army Chorus perform three verses of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic". This rendition was performed on the White house lawn during a ceremony welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to Washington DC on April 16, 2008.
One of the many verses that always brings tears to my eyes is:
"As he [Christ] died to make men holy, let us die to make them free"
Ronald Reagan said: "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged".
John Adams said: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Left to our own devices, we will eventually devolve to our base instincts, which will lead to anarchy (total freedom without restraints) or a totalitarian government (no freedom) will rise to power, in order to restore order. Only a secular democratic government, restrained and balanced by religious morality, can yield both maximum freedom and order. This is the unique American culture that made our nation free, prosperous and powerful. Belief in a power greater than ourselves, humbles us and gives us reason to build and maintain a just, free, prosperous and powerful nation. At times we must sacrifice our own, pleasures, wealth and even our very lives, for just and noble causes which bring us closer to God and purchase the freedom and prosperity for future generations. Our nation stands free and strong today because many of our predecessors have chosen to make such sacrifices. The extraordinary motivation for such sacrifice usually comes from desire to serve God, family and country. Today's liberals often seek to diminish the value of Judeo-Christian religions, the traditional family, and our unique American culture. These are required for the continued freedom, prosperity and very survival of America as we know it today.
A democracy can not sustain itself upon the view of the majority alone. It is quite obvious that views held by the majority are not necessarily proved as correct. There are countless examples, including that at one time, the vast majority of people believed that the Earth was flat. A democracy can only sustain itself if it is built upon a moral base which is founded upon universal spiritual principles, otherwise it will devolve into "mob-rule". An example would be the Palestinian democracy in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians democratically elected the terrorist group "Hamas" to lead their country. Once in power, they began to fire rockets into Israel, while ignoring their peoples needs for food, infrastructure (sewers, electricity, etc.), and productive work. This would not occur, in a democracy restrained by spiritual principles. Democracy without moral restraint, will not bring about freedom, peace and prosperity.
I often hear liberals claim that you can not legislate morality. This is preposterous. Most of our laws that our country was founded on were based on principles that are spelled out in the "Ten Commandments". We still honor most laws against lying, cheating , stealing and murdering which are moral principles that are laid out in the Ten Commandments. Up until recently we had laws against adultery, sodomy and doing business on the Sabbath. In my opinion, the decay we are seeing in morality is attributable to our society becoming more secular and less religious. Although I am not religious in the traditional sense, I do have a strong belief in God, the eternal soul and divine judgment. If these principles are removed or diminished from the American culture, I can see no other outcome than the demise of our unique American culture and the fall of our great nation.
I often hear liberals say that this country was founded in sin, due to slavery. To the contrary, the "Declaration if Independence", our Constitution and our "Bill of Rights" were based on spiritual principles and written in such a way that would eventually lead to the end of slavery. 750,000 men gave their lives in our most bloody war which resulted in the end of slavery. Please read the lyrics to all five verses of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic", which was a famous marching song of the Civil War. This hymn brings tears to my eyes because it puts morality and God above life itself. Years later, it was Christian leaders who started the civil rights movement which successfully removed discrimination, based on race, from our laws and our culture.
Click here for the lyrics: "Battle Hymn of the Republic"
Click here for a short article about the hymn's history.
For a real tear-jerking experience, click on the video below and listen to the the US Army Chorus perform three verses of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic". This rendition was performed on the White house lawn during a ceremony welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to Washington DC on April 16, 2008.
One of the many verses that always brings tears to my eyes is:
"As he [Christ] died to make men holy, let us die to make them free"
Ronald Reagan said: "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged".
John Adams said: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Left to our own devices, we will eventually devolve to our base instincts, which will lead to anarchy (total freedom without restraints) or a totalitarian government (no freedom) will rise to power, in order to restore order. Only a secular democratic government, restrained and balanced by religious morality, can yield both maximum freedom and order. This is the unique American culture that made our nation free, prosperous and powerful. Belief in a power greater than ourselves, humbles us and gives us reason to build and maintain a just, free, prosperous and powerful nation. At times we must sacrifice our own, pleasures, wealth and even our very lives, for just and noble causes which bring us closer to God and purchase the freedom and prosperity for future generations. Our nation stands free and strong today because many of our predecessors have chosen to make such sacrifices. The extraordinary motivation for such sacrifice usually comes from desire to serve God, family and country. Today's liberals often seek to diminish the value of Judeo-Christian religions, the traditional family, and our unique American culture. These are required for the continued freedom, prosperity and very survival of America as we know it today.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Rants, Runts and Ramblings
Recently I have been noticing that many people label any opinion that they disagree with, as a "rant". To my understanding, "rant" is an emotionally charged word. I define a rant as: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation, where emotionality supersedes rationality. Are there other common definitions that I am not aware of? The term rant implies that opposing opinions are emotional and unreasoned and should be summarily dismissed without debate. I attribute this, and many of our modern day societal problems, to the "feminizing" of our society.
Generally speaking, women rely more heavily on their right brain (emotional and artistic) and men have a stronger left brain which relies more heavily on reason and intellect. Both are needed to complement and contrast each other and form a complete human society. This is why it is so important for children to be brought up in homes that contain a loving compassionate nurturing mother and a strong, reasonable and pragmatic father. This is the way God and nature created the vast majority and this is what I consider to be normal. There is no denying this obvious truth. In today's modern society, I am seeing the feminizing of men, due to the decline of the intact nuclear family. Also emotional, half-truths and propaganda are spread by activists and amplified by the media, universities and the arts.
This feminizing has risen to the level of our political leaders, public schools, universities, media and the arts. Boys are taught to be more sensitive, that crying is natural, normal and nothing for a boy to be ashamed of. Boys are taught to run away from a fight, rather than confront an enemy who threatens them and "theirs". Boys are taught that competition is unfriendly and that good sportsmanship should rise to the level of a world where there are no winners and losers. Many schools have discontinued playground games such as dodge-ball and tag, because they are too aggressive. Some schools have stopped keeping score at sporting events, so that there are no losers. Some school plays alternate the lead part so that everyone gets a chance to play the lead, no matter how inept they are. These are all "feminine" views.
I believe my views to be mainstream, reasonable and obvious to anyone who is able to remain objective. Activists on the left, particularly feminist and homosexual activists, often alter public opinion by bullying their detractors with unfounded charges of prejudice, hatred and homophobia. I believe that these unfounded attacks are just as harmful, if not more harmful, than true prejudices, because their aim is to suppress opposing views with emotion, and manipulate public opinion with half truths and outright lies ".
One example that comes to mind occurred in San Francisco, in the early 80's. Before famous author and conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage achieved fame and notoriety, he volunteered in a San Francisco "free clinic" which was run by two homosexual doctors. Savage has earned a doctorate degree at Berkley and studied epidemiology among many other subjects pertaining to nutrition, botany, and natural healing. Savage was personal friends with these two "gay" doctors, who he often socialized with. During the early 80's, Savage noticed that many young, otherwise healthy gay men, were becoming afflicted with an unknown horrible disease that often lead to death. Savage was aware of the unsanitary conditions of the popular "gay bath houses" in San Francisco and reasoned that the activities going on in them was ripe for spreading an epidemic. Although savage had no proof that these bath houses might be spreading disease among San Francisco homosexuals, he called for closing all San Francisco bath houses in an effort to be prudent and avert a widespread epidemic among homosexuals and save many lives.
When Savage made his views public about shutting down all San Francisco bath houses he was vilified as a homophobe and a "gay basher". The gay doctors fired him from the clinic and disowned him as a friend. Gay activist's condemned Savage's ideas as hateful and anti-gay. He was only trying to avert a deadly epidemic that he reasoned was imminent based on his education, reason and common sense. Savage was dumbfounded because he had friends in the homosexual community who had now turned against him.
As it turned out, several years later it was discovered that a new virus called AIDS was responsible for the numerous illnesses and deaths in San Francisco's gay community. Later it was discovered that this disease was spread by unprotected anonymous gay sex, which was common in the bath-houses. If the gay activists would have used reason and listened to Savage, rather than using emotion to condemn him, many lives could have been saved. Eventually all of San Francisco's bath-houses were shut down because they were considered a breading ground for the deadly virus AIDS. However this truth never stopped the gay activists from labeling Savage as an homophobe and gay basher. To this day, Savage is vilified and demonized in the gay community.
Do you find any truth in my post or am I merely ranting about rants?
Generally speaking, women rely more heavily on their right brain (emotional and artistic) and men have a stronger left brain which relies more heavily on reason and intellect. Both are needed to complement and contrast each other and form a complete human society. This is why it is so important for children to be brought up in homes that contain a loving compassionate nurturing mother and a strong, reasonable and pragmatic father. This is the way God and nature created the vast majority and this is what I consider to be normal. There is no denying this obvious truth. In today's modern society, I am seeing the feminizing of men, due to the decline of the intact nuclear family. Also emotional, half-truths and propaganda are spread by activists and amplified by the media, universities and the arts.
This feminizing has risen to the level of our political leaders, public schools, universities, media and the arts. Boys are taught to be more sensitive, that crying is natural, normal and nothing for a boy to be ashamed of. Boys are taught to run away from a fight, rather than confront an enemy who threatens them and "theirs". Boys are taught that competition is unfriendly and that good sportsmanship should rise to the level of a world where there are no winners and losers. Many schools have discontinued playground games such as dodge-ball and tag, because they are too aggressive. Some schools have stopped keeping score at sporting events, so that there are no losers. Some school plays alternate the lead part so that everyone gets a chance to play the lead, no matter how inept they are. These are all "feminine" views.
I believe my views to be mainstream, reasonable and obvious to anyone who is able to remain objective. Activists on the left, particularly feminist and homosexual activists, often alter public opinion by bullying their detractors with unfounded charges of prejudice, hatred and homophobia. I believe that these unfounded attacks are just as harmful, if not more harmful, than true prejudices, because their aim is to suppress opposing views with emotion, and manipulate public opinion with half truths and outright lies ".
One example that comes to mind occurred in San Francisco, in the early 80's. Before famous author and conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage achieved fame and notoriety, he volunteered in a San Francisco "free clinic" which was run by two homosexual doctors. Savage has earned a doctorate degree at Berkley and studied epidemiology among many other subjects pertaining to nutrition, botany, and natural healing. Savage was personal friends with these two "gay" doctors, who he often socialized with. During the early 80's, Savage noticed that many young, otherwise healthy gay men, were becoming afflicted with an unknown horrible disease that often lead to death. Savage was aware of the unsanitary conditions of the popular "gay bath houses" in San Francisco and reasoned that the activities going on in them was ripe for spreading an epidemic. Although savage had no proof that these bath houses might be spreading disease among San Francisco homosexuals, he called for closing all San Francisco bath houses in an effort to be prudent and avert a widespread epidemic among homosexuals and save many lives.
When Savage made his views public about shutting down all San Francisco bath houses he was vilified as a homophobe and a "gay basher". The gay doctors fired him from the clinic and disowned him as a friend. Gay activist's condemned Savage's ideas as hateful and anti-gay. He was only trying to avert a deadly epidemic that he reasoned was imminent based on his education, reason and common sense. Savage was dumbfounded because he had friends in the homosexual community who had now turned against him.
As it turned out, several years later it was discovered that a new virus called AIDS was responsible for the numerous illnesses and deaths in San Francisco's gay community. Later it was discovered that this disease was spread by unprotected anonymous gay sex, which was common in the bath-houses. If the gay activists would have used reason and listened to Savage, rather than using emotion to condemn him, many lives could have been saved. Eventually all of San Francisco's bath-houses were shut down because they were considered a breading ground for the deadly virus AIDS. However this truth never stopped the gay activists from labeling Savage as an homophobe and gay basher. To this day, Savage is vilified and demonized in the gay community.
Do you find any truth in my post or am I merely ranting about rants?
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Character and Candidates
John Edwards is often touted as a brilliant trial lawyer. Hillary Clinton has been called the smartest woman in the world. I often hear Obama supporters touting his Harvard education and high level of intelligence as one of the main reasons for their support. While it is true that education and intelligence are desirable qualities, they only play a minor role in my voting decision. Intelligence is not, in and of itself, a virtue. Intelligence, knowledge, and education can be used for either good or evil. While education, knowledge, and intelligence can help a good man make more informed decisions, they can also be used by an evil man to carry out diabolical plans. What is most important to me is the character of a presidential candidate. Character is what separates good men from bad men, bad men from evil men, corrupt men from honest men, loyal men from traitorous men, selfless men from selfish men, faithful men from philanderers, humble men from conceited "show-offs", modesty from vanity, and ethical men from scoundrels.
Today's society places much emphasis on improving our bodies and our minds. Most people admire people of great intelligence, beauty, strength, and coordination. For the purpose of "full disclosure", I am compelled to admit that I have none of these characteristics, so I may be suffering from a case of "sour grapes". However, I believe that these physical and mental assets are nice, but in my mind, they are trivial when compared with good character. I do not admire talented singers, dancers, actors, athletes, Nobel laureates, engineers, doctors, scientists, philosophers, and intellectuals for those accomplishments in and of themselves. However, I am very impressed with a humble man who knows right from wrong and strives to improve his character and instill good character in his children. To do so without expecting reward, popularity, or recognition, shows the kind of character and humility that I greatly admire. Humility is a character asset. Our character is the essence of who we are. Character is a window into our soul. If you believe in an eternal soul like I do, our character, the essence of our soul, is the only thing that we will take with us when our spirit leaves this world upon our death. In the grand scheme of things, there is nothing more important than character.
Last week I read about an elite government microbiologist, Bruce E. Ivins, who committed suicide after an investigation implicated him in the 2001 anthrax terror attacks. Ivins apparently mailed anthrax laced envelopes, which threatened US senators and dozens of other innocent people with that deadly disease. Ivins received undergraduate and graduate degrees, including a doctorate in microbiology, from the University of Cincinnati. Ivins was a highly educated and intelligent scientist, but this did not stop him from carrying out an evil plan that led to the death of 5 people. It is believed that Ivins' altruistic motive for this horrific crime was to aid in the development of a vaccine against anthrax. Often diabolical crimes are carried out with an "ends justifies the means" altruistic motive. Ivins suffered from a defect in character that led him to perpetrate this horrific act, not a lack of education or intelligence.
In 1975 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , the president of Iran, took his entrance exams placing 132nd out of 400,000 at Iran University of Science and Technology. He earned an undergraduate degree in civil engineering and returned for his masters and earned a doctorate in traffic and transport engineering and planning. Despite these intellectual accomplishments, Ahmadinejad denies the Jewish holocaust in Germany, calls for the destruction of Israel, and seeks world domination through Islamic Jihad, in which he intends to kill or convert all non-Muslims. Ahmadinejad has twisted altruistic motives because he believes that this scenario will bring about everlasting world peace. Again, this "ends justifies the means" scenario is not compatible with our American cultural values based on Judeo-Christian ethics.
The Christian minister and civil rights leader, Reverend Martin Luther King, said: "Judge not by the color of one's skin, but by the content of one's character". Reverend King did not ask us us to judge people by their education, intelligence, looks, physical fitness, or other physical or mental characteristics. King directed us to judge people by the content of their character. Reverend King acknowledged the importance of judging of one's character.
These days, "judgment" seems to be a dirty word. We are told not to be judgmental, however, good judgment is essential to our health, happiness, prosperity, and safety. We all must use good judgment when choosing our friends, our spouse, our doctor, our pastor, our associates, and our president. We must use good judgment when purchasing a house, car, and investments to ensure that we do not get swindled. We rely on judgment to determine if we are safe and make the appropriate corrections to minimize our risks. Often we rely on generalizations and stereotypes to steer us away from danger or trouble. Generalizations and stereotypes are often true and a valuable tool in making judgments that we make every day. For example, we may not walk through a ghetto alone at three A.M. We may not purchase a major investment from a shabbily dressed person. We teach our children not to talk to strangers. We may not seek marriage counseling from a divorced counselor. We may not ask a convicted felon to "house sit" for us. We may not choose to date a known drug addict or alcoholic. We may not hire a known prostitute as our babysitter. In most cases, judging the character of the people that we deal with is more important than judging their intelligence and/or education. We all constantly make judgments based on people's personal appearance, past behavior, family background, criminal record, and other generalizations and stereotypes. Generalizations and stereotypes are often true because past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior and family background and associations has a great deal to do with our character.
Character assets, sometimes called spiritual principles, that I admire include: humility, self discipline, love, forgiveness, patience, faith in God, faithfulness to family, loyalty to country, friends, and associates, self-sacrifice, selflessness, honesty, and integrity. These spiritual principles are taken from the Judeo-Christian values that our American culture was founded upon. These are the principles that inspired our Declaration of Independence that is based on our self evident, inalienable rights granted to us by God, not government. These are the same principles that inspired civil rights leaders in the '60's to end segregation and pressure the government to pass civil rights legislation. These are the traits that I look for in friends, associates, and presidential candidates. Character is usually instilled in children by their parents, family, teachers, and spiritual leaders. Children who are born and raised by a loving mother and father and who have a strong faith in a loving God, are more likely to be instilled with good character.
Although Barack Obama is highly educated and intelligent, I believe that he lacks good values, character, and good judgment. Barack Obama is the product of an alcoholic polygamist father who abandoned his family when Barack was only two years old. Barack's mother left him to chase her dreams, traveling the world while Barack attended high school, leaving him with only his grandmother to look after him. Of course it is only a stereotype and generalization but children who are abandoned by their parents often have resentments which lead to lifelong psychological and spiritual problems. Knowing a person's family and upbringing is often helpful in judging that person's character. Obama's parents were both college educated. His mother was considered an intellectual and traveled the world as an anthropologist. His father left the family to study at Harvard and later on went back to Kenya where he died in an auto accident, when he was driving drunk. Both parents were highly educated, however, they both put their ambitions and pleasures ahead of their child. Although Barack Obama himself is highly intelligent and educated, did his spiritually vacuous parents leave him with a character deficit?
Also, Obama chose to join the Trinity Church in Chicago which is based on radical "Black Liberation Theology" . Black liberation theology is based on Marxism and Black Theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Obama was married in Trinity Church by Reverend Wright. He had his children baptized at Trinity and has attended Trinity with his wife and young children for sixteen years. Obama has called Reverend Wright of Trinity Church his friend and mentor. Reverend Wright is a highly educated man with two masters degrees and a doctorate degree. How can it be that Reverend Wright preaches that the US government purposely infected black Americans with the AIDS virus, that the US government plays a role in illicit drug use in the black ghettos, that the US is responsible for the 9/11 terror attack, and he preaches the words "God Damn America" from his pulpit at Trinity Church of Chicago? Could it be that this highly educated spiritual leader is himself suffering from moral and spiritual deficit?
Obama donated $25,000 to Trinity Church prior to his bid for the presidency. I think that Obama used Trinity Church and Reverend Wright to make political connections to further his political career. Obama has recently disowned Trinity Church and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright after Wright's racist and Anti-American statements from the pulpit became widely publicized. I think that Obama's longstanding relationship with Trinity Church and Reverend Wright reflects on his character and judgment. Obama's sudden disowning of his friend and mentor, Reverend Wright, who he had a twenty year relationship with, speaks for his lack of loyalty.
Another negative association of Barack Obama is the admitted domestic terrorist Bill Ayres. Bill Ayres is an anti-American radical who has admitted to bombing police stations and government offices. There were no casualties, only property damage in those attacks. He and his wife performed these terrorist acts as members of a radical group called the Weather Underground during the '60's and '70's as protests against the Vietnam War. They avoided conviction because their case was dismissed on the technicality of an improper search and the evidence was not allowed in court. As recently as 2001, Ayres has been recorded as saying that he had no remorse for his role in the bombings in the '60s' and 70's, he only regrets that he did not do more, because they were ineffective. Obama has recently admitted to being friendly with Bill Ayres. He said that their children went to school and played together. They spoke at several panels together. Also, William Ayres held fundraisers for Obama that helped launch his political career and Obama has been a guest in the Ayres' home. Ayers is currently a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. Although Ayres is currently a respected professor at a prestigious Chicago university, clearly Bill Ayres is a man of high intelligence but low on character. Obama's association with him gives us a window into Obama's character.
Another shady associate of Obama is convicted racketeer Tony Rezko. Rezko has been recently convicted of giving cash and campaign contributions to several Illinois politicians in exchange for lucrative contracts for low income housing projects. Rezko contributed a quarter million dollars to Obama's political campaigns. Obama has since donated some of that money to charity, after Rezko was indicted. Rezko was also involved a in a real estate deal with Obama. Obama bought land adjacent to his newly purchased home from Rezko's wife, at three hundred thousand dollars below market value. Obama did nothing illegal, but he had to have known that Rezko would expect political favors in the future in exchange for the land deal and campaign contributions. This is exactly what Rezko got convicted of, getting lucrative housing contracts from politicians that he helped install in office with contributions, bribes, money laundering, and racketeering. Obama was selling his political soul to the devil by accepting contributions and favors from Tony Rezko. This too speaks to Obama's character and judgment.
In today's day and age, much value is placed on popularity, good looks, youth, education, wealth, diversity, and physical and mental talents. Also, I am seeing parents, schools, universities, the media, the arts, the medical community, and even churches endorsing a philosophy that says feelings, self esteem, fitting in, and being cool are paramount. Today's culture is teaching that any form of judgment and moral restraint is wrong, oppressive, and prejudicial. All forms of diversity are celebrated, especially if they are in conflict with traditional American values. On the other hand, little attention is payed to the universal spiritual principles that our great country was founded on, and that define us in the eyes of our Creator.
The separation of church and state is vital to our society. Just as we have a separation of powers within government (executive, judicial, and legislative), both government and our Judeo-Christian values are needed to keep one another in check. Judeo-Christian ethics, separated from and balanced by a secular government, is how our unique American culture is defined. The "Ten Commandments" are the root of our secular laws. Mitt Romney best describes this in his "Faith in America" speech.
All forms of diversity are not necessarily compatible with American culture. Islamic "Sharia law" is not compatible with American law due to its lack of women's' rights, punishment by amputation, lashing, and stoning. Sharia law also considers the act of homosexuality a capital crime. Atheistic values are also not necessarily compatible with our unique American culture. If atheism, Sharia law, and/or a hodgepodge of random spiritual beliefs become the majority, we will lose our unique American culture and the freedom, wealth, strength, and civil equality that it has brought to our nation.
Nearly one third of Muslim students in England believe it can be acceptable to kill in the name of religion, according to a survey published yesterday. It also found that 40 per cent want to see the introduction of Islamic Sharia law in Britain, 40 per cent think it wrong for Muslim men and women to mix freely together, and 33 per cent want to see a worldwide Islamic government based on Sharia law. Clearly this culture is not compatible with western culture. If this trend continues to grow, western culture in Britain will be threatened as a result of encouraging this form of diversity.
If we are to survive as a free, wealthy, and strong nation, we must return to the the principles that our nation was founded on. These values are what keeps our people free, prosperous, and strong. If our individual and collective character decays, we will become apathetic about choosing men of character to lead us. In fact, we will choose leaders based on how cool and popular they appear. If this happens, it will lead to deceit, manipulation, corruption, anarchy, and decay of the once great American democratic republic. Freedom without moral restraint is unsustainable and will lead to anarchy. Sanctuary cities and selective enforcement of immigration laws are glaring examples of the beginning of anarchy in America. When anarchy becomes widespread, it will lead to widespread violence and poverty. In an effort to squelch the violence and poverty that anarchy breeds, a totalitarian government may rise to power. Character and spiritual principles must trump education and intelligence when choosing our leaders if we are to preserve our unique American culture and survive as a great, free, and prosperous nation.
Today's society places much emphasis on improving our bodies and our minds. Most people admire people of great intelligence, beauty, strength, and coordination. For the purpose of "full disclosure", I am compelled to admit that I have none of these characteristics, so I may be suffering from a case of "sour grapes". However, I believe that these physical and mental assets are nice, but in my mind, they are trivial when compared with good character. I do not admire talented singers, dancers, actors, athletes, Nobel laureates, engineers, doctors, scientists, philosophers, and intellectuals for those accomplishments in and of themselves. However, I am very impressed with a humble man who knows right from wrong and strives to improve his character and instill good character in his children. To do so without expecting reward, popularity, or recognition, shows the kind of character and humility that I greatly admire. Humility is a character asset. Our character is the essence of who we are. Character is a window into our soul. If you believe in an eternal soul like I do, our character, the essence of our soul, is the only thing that we will take with us when our spirit leaves this world upon our death. In the grand scheme of things, there is nothing more important than character.
Last week I read about an elite government microbiologist, Bruce E. Ivins, who committed suicide after an investigation implicated him in the 2001 anthrax terror attacks. Ivins apparently mailed anthrax laced envelopes, which threatened US senators and dozens of other innocent people with that deadly disease. Ivins received undergraduate and graduate degrees, including a doctorate in microbiology, from the University of Cincinnati. Ivins was a highly educated and intelligent scientist, but this did not stop him from carrying out an evil plan that led to the death of 5 people. It is believed that Ivins' altruistic motive for this horrific crime was to aid in the development of a vaccine against anthrax. Often diabolical crimes are carried out with an "ends justifies the means" altruistic motive. Ivins suffered from a defect in character that led him to perpetrate this horrific act, not a lack of education or intelligence.
In 1975 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , the president of Iran, took his entrance exams placing 132nd out of 400,000 at Iran University of Science and Technology. He earned an undergraduate degree in civil engineering and returned for his masters and earned a doctorate in traffic and transport engineering and planning. Despite these intellectual accomplishments, Ahmadinejad denies the Jewish holocaust in Germany, calls for the destruction of Israel, and seeks world domination through Islamic Jihad, in which he intends to kill or convert all non-Muslims. Ahmadinejad has twisted altruistic motives because he believes that this scenario will bring about everlasting world peace. Again, this "ends justifies the means" scenario is not compatible with our American cultural values based on Judeo-Christian ethics.
The Christian minister and civil rights leader, Reverend Martin Luther King, said: "Judge not by the color of one's skin, but by the content of one's character". Reverend King did not ask us us to judge people by their education, intelligence, looks, physical fitness, or other physical or mental characteristics. King directed us to judge people by the content of their character. Reverend King acknowledged the importance of judging of one's character.
These days, "judgment" seems to be a dirty word. We are told not to be judgmental, however, good judgment is essential to our health, happiness, prosperity, and safety. We all must use good judgment when choosing our friends, our spouse, our doctor, our pastor, our associates, and our president. We must use good judgment when purchasing a house, car, and investments to ensure that we do not get swindled. We rely on judgment to determine if we are safe and make the appropriate corrections to minimize our risks. Often we rely on generalizations and stereotypes to steer us away from danger or trouble. Generalizations and stereotypes are often true and a valuable tool in making judgments that we make every day. For example, we may not walk through a ghetto alone at three A.M. We may not purchase a major investment from a shabbily dressed person. We teach our children not to talk to strangers. We may not seek marriage counseling from a divorced counselor. We may not ask a convicted felon to "house sit" for us. We may not choose to date a known drug addict or alcoholic. We may not hire a known prostitute as our babysitter. In most cases, judging the character of the people that we deal with is more important than judging their intelligence and/or education. We all constantly make judgments based on people's personal appearance, past behavior, family background, criminal record, and other generalizations and stereotypes. Generalizations and stereotypes are often true because past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior and family background and associations has a great deal to do with our character.
Character assets, sometimes called spiritual principles, that I admire include: humility, self discipline, love, forgiveness, patience, faith in God, faithfulness to family, loyalty to country, friends, and associates, self-sacrifice, selflessness, honesty, and integrity. These spiritual principles are taken from the Judeo-Christian values that our American culture was founded upon. These are the principles that inspired our Declaration of Independence that is based on our self evident, inalienable rights granted to us by God, not government. These are the same principles that inspired civil rights leaders in the '60's to end segregation and pressure the government to pass civil rights legislation. These are the traits that I look for in friends, associates, and presidential candidates. Character is usually instilled in children by their parents, family, teachers, and spiritual leaders. Children who are born and raised by a loving mother and father and who have a strong faith in a loving God, are more likely to be instilled with good character.
Although Barack Obama is highly educated and intelligent, I believe that he lacks good values, character, and good judgment. Barack Obama is the product of an alcoholic polygamist father who abandoned his family when Barack was only two years old. Barack's mother left him to chase her dreams, traveling the world while Barack attended high school, leaving him with only his grandmother to look after him. Of course it is only a stereotype and generalization but children who are abandoned by their parents often have resentments which lead to lifelong psychological and spiritual problems. Knowing a person's family and upbringing is often helpful in judging that person's character. Obama's parents were both college educated. His mother was considered an intellectual and traveled the world as an anthropologist. His father left the family to study at Harvard and later on went back to Kenya where he died in an auto accident, when he was driving drunk. Both parents were highly educated, however, they both put their ambitions and pleasures ahead of their child. Although Barack Obama himself is highly intelligent and educated, did his spiritually vacuous parents leave him with a character deficit?
Also, Obama chose to join the Trinity Church in Chicago which is based on radical "Black Liberation Theology" . Black liberation theology is based on Marxism and Black Theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Obama was married in Trinity Church by Reverend Wright. He had his children baptized at Trinity and has attended Trinity with his wife and young children for sixteen years. Obama has called Reverend Wright of Trinity Church his friend and mentor. Reverend Wright is a highly educated man with two masters degrees and a doctorate degree. How can it be that Reverend Wright preaches that the US government purposely infected black Americans with the AIDS virus, that the US government plays a role in illicit drug use in the black ghettos, that the US is responsible for the 9/11 terror attack, and he preaches the words "God Damn America" from his pulpit at Trinity Church of Chicago? Could it be that this highly educated spiritual leader is himself suffering from moral and spiritual deficit?
Obama donated $25,000 to Trinity Church prior to his bid for the presidency. I think that Obama used Trinity Church and Reverend Wright to make political connections to further his political career. Obama has recently disowned Trinity Church and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright after Wright's racist and Anti-American statements from the pulpit became widely publicized. I think that Obama's longstanding relationship with Trinity Church and Reverend Wright reflects on his character and judgment. Obama's sudden disowning of his friend and mentor, Reverend Wright, who he had a twenty year relationship with, speaks for his lack of loyalty.
Another negative association of Barack Obama is the admitted domestic terrorist Bill Ayres. Bill Ayres is an anti-American radical who has admitted to bombing police stations and government offices. There were no casualties, only property damage in those attacks. He and his wife performed these terrorist acts as members of a radical group called the Weather Underground during the '60's and '70's as protests against the Vietnam War. They avoided conviction because their case was dismissed on the technicality of an improper search and the evidence was not allowed in court. As recently as 2001, Ayres has been recorded as saying that he had no remorse for his role in the bombings in the '60s' and 70's, he only regrets that he did not do more, because they were ineffective. Obama has recently admitted to being friendly with Bill Ayres. He said that their children went to school and played together. They spoke at several panels together. Also, William Ayres held fundraisers for Obama that helped launch his political career and Obama has been a guest in the Ayres' home. Ayers is currently a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. Although Ayres is currently a respected professor at a prestigious Chicago university, clearly Bill Ayres is a man of high intelligence but low on character. Obama's association with him gives us a window into Obama's character.
Another shady associate of Obama is convicted racketeer Tony Rezko. Rezko has been recently convicted of giving cash and campaign contributions to several Illinois politicians in exchange for lucrative contracts for low income housing projects. Rezko contributed a quarter million dollars to Obama's political campaigns. Obama has since donated some of that money to charity, after Rezko was indicted. Rezko was also involved a in a real estate deal with Obama. Obama bought land adjacent to his newly purchased home from Rezko's wife, at three hundred thousand dollars below market value. Obama did nothing illegal, but he had to have known that Rezko would expect political favors in the future in exchange for the land deal and campaign contributions. This is exactly what Rezko got convicted of, getting lucrative housing contracts from politicians that he helped install in office with contributions, bribes, money laundering, and racketeering. Obama was selling his political soul to the devil by accepting contributions and favors from Tony Rezko. This too speaks to Obama's character and judgment.
In today's day and age, much value is placed on popularity, good looks, youth, education, wealth, diversity, and physical and mental talents. Also, I am seeing parents, schools, universities, the media, the arts, the medical community, and even churches endorsing a philosophy that says feelings, self esteem, fitting in, and being cool are paramount. Today's culture is teaching that any form of judgment and moral restraint is wrong, oppressive, and prejudicial. All forms of diversity are celebrated, especially if they are in conflict with traditional American values. On the other hand, little attention is payed to the universal spiritual principles that our great country was founded on, and that define us in the eyes of our Creator.
The separation of church and state is vital to our society. Just as we have a separation of powers within government (executive, judicial, and legislative), both government and our Judeo-Christian values are needed to keep one another in check. Judeo-Christian ethics, separated from and balanced by a secular government, is how our unique American culture is defined. The "Ten Commandments" are the root of our secular laws. Mitt Romney best describes this in his "Faith in America" speech.
All forms of diversity are not necessarily compatible with American culture. Islamic "Sharia law" is not compatible with American law due to its lack of women's' rights, punishment by amputation, lashing, and stoning. Sharia law also considers the act of homosexuality a capital crime. Atheistic values are also not necessarily compatible with our unique American culture. If atheism, Sharia law, and/or a hodgepodge of random spiritual beliefs become the majority, we will lose our unique American culture and the freedom, wealth, strength, and civil equality that it has brought to our nation.
Nearly one third of Muslim students in England believe it can be acceptable to kill in the name of religion, according to a survey published yesterday. It also found that 40 per cent want to see the introduction of Islamic Sharia law in Britain, 40 per cent think it wrong for Muslim men and women to mix freely together, and 33 per cent want to see a worldwide Islamic government based on Sharia law. Clearly this culture is not compatible with western culture. If this trend continues to grow, western culture in Britain will be threatened as a result of encouraging this form of diversity.
If we are to survive as a free, wealthy, and strong nation, we must return to the the principles that our nation was founded on. These values are what keeps our people free, prosperous, and strong. If our individual and collective character decays, we will become apathetic about choosing men of character to lead us. In fact, we will choose leaders based on how cool and popular they appear. If this happens, it will lead to deceit, manipulation, corruption, anarchy, and decay of the once great American democratic republic. Freedom without moral restraint is unsustainable and will lead to anarchy. Sanctuary cities and selective enforcement of immigration laws are glaring examples of the beginning of anarchy in America. When anarchy becomes widespread, it will lead to widespread violence and poverty. In an effort to squelch the violence and poverty that anarchy breeds, a totalitarian government may rise to power. Character and spiritual principles must trump education and intelligence when choosing our leaders if we are to preserve our unique American culture and survive as a great, free, and prosperous nation.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Liberal Bullying Silences the Majority
I came across this excellent article from the Washington times. It is an editorial about the liberal bias in Hollywood. The article is called: "Mr. Spielberg, Tear Down This Wall", By Andrew Breitbart. Please take the time to read it and let me know what you think.
This article states that there is "political bullying" in Hollywood. Breitbart wrote, "And because of bullying (or what Democrats would call blacklisting or “political discrimination” if the shoe were on the other foot), Hollywood has become a one-party town." Breitbart goes on to say: "But while it is true that the ratio of Obama to McCain bumper stickers in West L.A. is about 250 to 1, there are indeed untold closet Republicans in the entertainment industry who dare not advertise their beliefs in movie studio parking lots. (Unfortunately, car keying is a tactic wielded liberally by the self-described “tolerant.”) ".
The article also writes about the few openly conservative players in Hollywood. The only one who I am familiar with is Dennis Miller. Dennis Miller is a famous comedian who turned conservative after 9/11. Dennis Miller now has a radio talk show and is also a frequent guest on "the O'Reilly Factor" on Fox news. I have heard Miller talk about how open conservatives in Hollywood are ostracized and have a hard time finding work and invitations to social events. He says that the liberals in Hollywood are clearly intolerant of opposing political view-points. He says that conservatives must remain "in the closet", lest they lose their chance of getting lucrative contracts and advancing in Hollywood.
I have also noticed a similar type of bullying on the Yahoo Answers web-site. This is a web-site where you can ask and answer questions on a variety of topics in any of about a hundred categories. I usually participate in the categories of politics & elections, religion & spirituality, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual &transgendered and global warming. I have had scores of questions and answers reported and removed and over a dozen accounts suspended. The reasons are usually because I am critical of "gay pride", atheism, and Barack Obama. My questions and answers are usually thoughtful, reasoned, non confrontational and non insulting. However, because of my opinion, my answers often get reported and removed and eventually my account gets suspended. Apparently, I am not the only one that this is happening to, because I notice that a majority of people who post in the "religion and spirituality" category are atheists, witches, and followers of pagan religions. Often they make very hateful, intolerant comments about Christianity. I believe that Christians are being intimidated by having their questions and answers removed and their accounts suspended, just like me. After a while they just give up, and the atheists have taken over. The same thing happens in the "LGBT" category if you are critical of celebrating homosexuality, and in the political & elections category if you are critical of Obama. So far, the global warming enthusiasts seem to be more tolerant of differing views.
I mention this bullying on Yahoo Answers, because I think it is exemplary of what is happening in Hollywood and on college campuses. For example, you see many hateful bumper stickers on automobiles mocking and insulting President Bush, but you rarely, if ever, see bumper stickers praising Bush or mocking Obama. People dare not affix conservative bumper stickers, lest they risk vandalism to their car, yet liberals often go ever-the-top, calling for Bush's conviction and impeachment and they are widely accepted. Students at a Georgia university, recently protested to have Supreme Court Justice, Clarance Thomas, dis invited from speaking at their commencement hearing. It has been reported that over 80% of all speakers invited to speak at University commencement ceremonies this year were liberal. Often conservative speakers on University campuses get booed, heckled or bullied out of appearing in the first place.
Just like the article in the Washington Times says, I find liberals, homosexuals and atheists to be very intolerant of opposing views. There are many examples of liberals who are actively stifling free speech when they disagree. I have written about some of these in previous articles. This is a far cry from the liberals of the 60s who said " I may disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it". Ben Stein's movie "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" is another example of liberal bullying by the Universities.
Most people, especially conservatives, just want to get on with their work or their studies without getting hassled. They maintain a low profile, so as not to attract the ire of pacifists, gay activists, atheists, and believers in man-made global warming. Those activist groups may be small in number, but they are quite vocal, offensive, intimidating, aggressive and "in-your-face". Most sane people don't want to get into a confrontation with these "loons", so they either join them or keep their mouth shut. As a result, it appears that everyone is on their side and more people join them, just to fit in with what seems to be popular on college campuses, Hollywood and in most major cities".
Liberals often are opposed to anything that judges or restrains people's behavior. Of course they don't see the irony, that good judgment, self restraint and discipline, offers us the most freedom, prosperity and peace. I have seen the most bizarre and negative behavior condoned by liberals. Celebrating the gangster culture and hip-hop music is a good example. Anything unusual and weird is celebrated and considered hip and cool, in Hollywood and on most of today's college campuses, in the name of art, self-expression and diversity. At the same time, many of the more extreme liberals mock Christianity, the traditional family and even our country.
What Andrew Breitbart writes about in his article is a microcosm of what is now happening on university campuses, major cities, and on the major websites (Google & Yahoo). It seems that a vocal and intimidating minority is bullying the majority to join their cause or just shut up. I am disappointed to see such limited opposition to these misguided bullies that are succeeding in indoctrinating much of the American public and silencing the rest.
This article states that there is "political bullying" in Hollywood. Breitbart wrote, "And because of bullying (or what Democrats would call blacklisting or “political discrimination” if the shoe were on the other foot), Hollywood has become a one-party town." Breitbart goes on to say: "But while it is true that the ratio of Obama to McCain bumper stickers in West L.A. is about 250 to 1, there are indeed untold closet Republicans in the entertainment industry who dare not advertise their beliefs in movie studio parking lots. (Unfortunately, car keying is a tactic wielded liberally by the self-described “tolerant.”) ".
The article also writes about the few openly conservative players in Hollywood. The only one who I am familiar with is Dennis Miller. Dennis Miller is a famous comedian who turned conservative after 9/11. Dennis Miller now has a radio talk show and is also a frequent guest on "the O'Reilly Factor" on Fox news. I have heard Miller talk about how open conservatives in Hollywood are ostracized and have a hard time finding work and invitations to social events. He says that the liberals in Hollywood are clearly intolerant of opposing political view-points. He says that conservatives must remain "in the closet", lest they lose their chance of getting lucrative contracts and advancing in Hollywood.
I have also noticed a similar type of bullying on the Yahoo Answers web-site. This is a web-site where you can ask and answer questions on a variety of topics in any of about a hundred categories. I usually participate in the categories of politics & elections, religion & spirituality, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual &transgendered and global warming. I have had scores of questions and answers reported and removed and over a dozen accounts suspended. The reasons are usually because I am critical of "gay pride", atheism, and Barack Obama. My questions and answers are usually thoughtful, reasoned, non confrontational and non insulting. However, because of my opinion, my answers often get reported and removed and eventually my account gets suspended. Apparently, I am not the only one that this is happening to, because I notice that a majority of people who post in the "religion and spirituality" category are atheists, witches, and followers of pagan religions. Often they make very hateful, intolerant comments about Christianity. I believe that Christians are being intimidated by having their questions and answers removed and their accounts suspended, just like me. After a while they just give up, and the atheists have taken over. The same thing happens in the "LGBT" category if you are critical of celebrating homosexuality, and in the political & elections category if you are critical of Obama. So far, the global warming enthusiasts seem to be more tolerant of differing views.
I mention this bullying on Yahoo Answers, because I think it is exemplary of what is happening in Hollywood and on college campuses. For example, you see many hateful bumper stickers on automobiles mocking and insulting President Bush, but you rarely, if ever, see bumper stickers praising Bush or mocking Obama. People dare not affix conservative bumper stickers, lest they risk vandalism to their car, yet liberals often go ever-the-top, calling for Bush's conviction and impeachment and they are widely accepted. Students at a Georgia university, recently protested to have Supreme Court Justice, Clarance Thomas, dis invited from speaking at their commencement hearing. It has been reported that over 80% of all speakers invited to speak at University commencement ceremonies this year were liberal. Often conservative speakers on University campuses get booed, heckled or bullied out of appearing in the first place.
Just like the article in the Washington Times says, I find liberals, homosexuals and atheists to be very intolerant of opposing views. There are many examples of liberals who are actively stifling free speech when they disagree. I have written about some of these in previous articles. This is a far cry from the liberals of the 60s who said " I may disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it". Ben Stein's movie "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" is another example of liberal bullying by the Universities.
Most people, especially conservatives, just want to get on with their work or their studies without getting hassled. They maintain a low profile, so as not to attract the ire of pacifists, gay activists, atheists, and believers in man-made global warming. Those activist groups may be small in number, but they are quite vocal, offensive, intimidating, aggressive and "in-your-face". Most sane people don't want to get into a confrontation with these "loons", so they either join them or keep their mouth shut. As a result, it appears that everyone is on their side and more people join them, just to fit in with what seems to be popular on college campuses, Hollywood and in most major cities".
Liberals often are opposed to anything that judges or restrains people's behavior. Of course they don't see the irony, that good judgment, self restraint and discipline, offers us the most freedom, prosperity and peace. I have seen the most bizarre and negative behavior condoned by liberals. Celebrating the gangster culture and hip-hop music is a good example. Anything unusual and weird is celebrated and considered hip and cool, in Hollywood and on most of today's college campuses, in the name of art, self-expression and diversity. At the same time, many of the more extreme liberals mock Christianity, the traditional family and even our country.
What Andrew Breitbart writes about in his article is a microcosm of what is now happening on university campuses, major cities, and on the major websites (Google & Yahoo). It seems that a vocal and intimidating minority is bullying the majority to join their cause or just shut up. I am disappointed to see such limited opposition to these misguided bullies that are succeeding in indoctrinating much of the American public and silencing the rest.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Teenage Pregnancy: Shameful or Cool?
I read an interesting article today about teenage pregnancy in a small town high school in Massachusetts. It is about 17 teenage high school girls, all under 16, who made a pact to all get pregnant, so they could raise their babies together. They thought it would be "cool" to get pregnant in high school.
The high school provides day care for their babies so they can remain in school. The problem with liberal policies is that they usually encourage the behavior that they are trying to discourage. Due to the "sex education" classes and encouraging pregnant teens to remain in school by providing "day care", they are normalizing and encouraging teenage sex and pregnancy. I have been a lone voice in saying that stigma and shame needs to be used to discourage teenage pregnancy. Instead the opposite is true, it is considered "cool" to be a pregnant teen these days. Tonight, for the first time, I heard a commentator on a cable news show, echo my sentiments. By providing day care and sex education, they are sending the kids a signal that it is OK to have sex and get pregnant in high school.
As I have written in previous articles, the movie "Juno" normalizes and minimizes teen pregnancy as just a small bump in the road of a cool teenager's life. The publicity that teen actress, Jamie Lynn Spears got after she got pregnant, also helped glamorize and make teenage pregnancy acceptable and even desirable to many teens. Government social programs also encourage this behavior with many programs that are designed to help pregnant teens, but actually encourage and enable teenage sex and pregnancy. Their parents won't mind so much because the baby food, doctors visits, diapers and babysitting will be paid for by government programs. I wonder if the parents of these girls were as nonchalant about their situation as the parents of Juno in the movie.
Click hear to read the article entitled "Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High"
The high school provides day care for their babies so they can remain in school. The problem with liberal policies is that they usually encourage the behavior that they are trying to discourage. Due to the "sex education" classes and encouraging pregnant teens to remain in school by providing "day care", they are normalizing and encouraging teenage sex and pregnancy. I have been a lone voice in saying that stigma and shame needs to be used to discourage teenage pregnancy. Instead the opposite is true, it is considered "cool" to be a pregnant teen these days. Tonight, for the first time, I heard a commentator on a cable news show, echo my sentiments. By providing day care and sex education, they are sending the kids a signal that it is OK to have sex and get pregnant in high school.
As I have written in previous articles, the movie "Juno" normalizes and minimizes teen pregnancy as just a small bump in the road of a cool teenager's life. The publicity that teen actress, Jamie Lynn Spears got after she got pregnant, also helped glamorize and make teenage pregnancy acceptable and even desirable to many teens. Government social programs also encourage this behavior with many programs that are designed to help pregnant teens, but actually encourage and enable teenage sex and pregnancy. Their parents won't mind so much because the baby food, doctors visits, diapers and babysitting will be paid for by government programs. I wonder if the parents of these girls were as nonchalant about their situation as the parents of Juno in the movie.
Click hear to read the article entitled "Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High"
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Homosexual Marriage, the California Courts, and the Decay of Society
I think what I have to say about this matter is obvious and common sense. First of all, it is clear that the California Supreme Court was not interpreting the state constitution, but they were legislating from the bench, as they have done in the past. I felt the same way when the voters in California voted to with-hold all state funded services from illegal aliens, but the California Supreme Court overturned that referendum. The same type of legislation from the bench was responsible for the Roe Vs. Wade decision. Although it is clearly unnatural and illegal to kill an unborn child who is still within the womb, the US supreme court used the rationality of "women's privacy" to justify the ruling which gave women the "right to abortion". Clearly our "Bill of Rights" guarantees all people the right to "life", liberty and property. It is quite a stretch to put the woman's right to privacy above an unborn child's life. It is not clear to me why privacy has anything to do with abortion what-so-ever. Certainly the right to life is applicable here and not privacy. However once our society has strayed from the universal spiritual principles, that our nation was founded upon, truth, honor and integrity can also be reinterpreted. Our judges and lawmakers have strayed from universal spiritual principles that our founding documents spoke of, and that our nation was built upon. Moral equivalencies are now being used to justify the most twisted reasoning. This tactic can only work in a nation whose people have lost their moral compass. In today's popular culture, we have completely lost the ability to distinguish, right from wrong, good from evil normal from abnormal and positive from negative. Moral equivalencies are constantly being used to justify negative behavior. When our courts do not follow our laws, and our legislators are not guided by morals and spiritual principles, a free people can not exist. We are witnessing the beginning of the decline and fall of a once great nation.
It is obvious that the California constitution does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have wording that prohibits this referendum. They claim that prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals are clearly not being discriminated against because they too have the right to marry. Marriage is defined as "the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, which becomes the foundation for a home and family". Homosexuals clearly have the right to marry or choose not to marry under current law. What homosexual activists are trying to do, is to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. By the same logic, the court can legitimize polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality, with the same interpretation, if the participants are willing and if the court was so inclined. Those rulings would be just as outrageous as giving legitimacy to homosexual marriage.
I was unbelievably surprised to find that the definition of marriage has been changed in most dictionaries in order to fit the homosexual agenda and to include all possibilities, no matter how bizarre to the American culture. The definition that I printed above, is my understanding of marriage. However that definition was the fifteenth definition in a long list of seventeen definitions of marriage that I found on the web.
I will reprint them here. Definitions of marriage on the Web:
It is obvious that the California constitution does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have wording that prohibits this referendum. They claim that prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals are clearly not being discriminated against because they too have the right to marry. Marriage is defined as "the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, which becomes the foundation for a home and family". Homosexuals clearly have the right to marry or choose not to marry under current law. What homosexual activists are trying to do, is to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. By the same logic, the court can legitimize polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality, with the same interpretation, if the participants are willing and if the court was so inclined. Those rulings would be just as outrageous as giving legitimacy to homosexual marriage.
I was unbelievably surprised to find that the definition of marriage has been changed in most dictionaries in order to fit the homosexual agenda and to include all possibilities, no matter how bizarre to the American culture. The definition that I printed above, is my understanding of marriage. However that definition was the fifteenth definition in a long list of seventeen definitions of marriage that I found on the web.
I will reprint them here. Definitions of marriage on the Web:
- the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
- two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
- the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
- a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
- A marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract.The most frequently occurring form of marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
- In Conflict of Laws, the issue of marriage has assumed increasing public policy significance in a world of increasing multi-ethnic, multi-cultural community existence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage (conflict)
- the ceremony of union of man and wife was a sacrament of the churchwww.medievalwriting.50megs.com/churchglossary/glossaryi.htm
- Age-specific first marriage rates For men (or women), the age-specific first marriages rates are obtained by dividing the number of first marriages of men (or women) of a given age by the number of never married men (or women) in the same age at June 30.www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/glossary.html
- Socially-approved sexual and economic union, usually of a male and a female, that is assumed to be more or less permanent.www.killgrove.org/ANT220/cultanthdef.html
- An alternative name for the Beatitude, the fourth stage of the after-life, conceived of as the symbolic marriage of the Spirit and the Celestial Body.www.yeatsvision.com/Terminology.html
- 1) Holy Matrimony or Marriage is the solemn contract based on a loving relationship between a man and a woman in which they publicly promise to live together ‘for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health until death do them part’. ...www.easterncathedrals.org.uk/glossary/retrieve.php
- He married the author Anne Morrow Lindbergh in 1929. He taught her how to fly and did much of the exploring and charting of air-routes together with her. The two had six children: Charles Augustus Jr. (born 1930), Jon (1932), Land (1937), Anne (1940), Scott (1942) and Reeve (1945).www.usairnet.com/encyclopedia/Charles_Lindbergh.html
- Three definitions of Marriage:www.anglican.ca/faith/ethics/hsrg/terminology.htm
- as a feudal term, was the lord's right of giving his ward in marriage to whom he pleased—in other words, of receiving a money payment for liberty to wed her.www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp
- the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, which becomes the foundation for a home and family.www.ebible.com/dict/NNIBD/marriage
- (1923), a blank-verse monologue of nearly 300 lines, blends quotations, allusions, and ironies. Observations (1924), which won the annual Dial Award, shows a marked increase in free verse among the new poems, for instance, in "Silence," "Bowls," and "An Octopus. ...www.bookrags.com/biography/marianne-moore/
- includes a void marriage.law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm
Like I said, I am surprised to find that the dictionary has confused the meaning of marriage to the point where it is unrecognizable. I was truly surprised to find this. If you have any old dictionaries, I would very much like to know how marriage is defined in them. See if you can find some dictionaries that are 10 years old or older, and see how they define marriage.
The fact is that homosexuals are not discriminated against because they are allowed to marry, under the law, just as heterosexual people are. It is their choice not to marry someone of the opposite sex. No-one is withholding that right from them. Everyone has the right to marry as it used to be defined (before they confused the definition).
Now let me get to the crux of the matter. Let me ask this question: Do homosexuals want the right to marry or do they just want to "raise a ruckus" and seek attention and mock religion and marriage? The obvious answer is the latter.
I have written many articles about how today's popular culture, celebrates that which is bad, evil and abnormal, and mocks that which is good, righteous and normal. I have given examples of how today's youth often put grotesque jewelry through piercings on their lips, nose, eyebrows, tongue, cheeks, nipples, bellybuttons and sex organs. They often use foul language and the boys often dress like and emulate gangsters, and the girls often dress like sleazy seductresses. They often wear clothing and tattoos that depict satanic symbols and symbols of evil. These symbols may include skull and crossbones (symbol of death, poison, and pirates), the iron cross (Nazi war medal), devils, serpents, flames of hell, weapons, barbed wire bracelets, spider webs, symbols of witchcraft and the occult. Often they try to out-do each other with bizarre haircuts and hair colorings, etc. Often they install giant speakers and powerful amplifiers that blast the most obscene music from their cars. They justify this outrageous behavior as freedom of expression, but if you try to "express" your feelings to them about this negative imagery and behavior, they will hurl the most vulgar insults at you, in an effort to silence you. It is clear that they are not interested in positive expressions, but only negative, shocking and offensive expressions. It is clear to me that this bizarre behavior is a scream for attention from kids who know that something is wrong. Our society has become so upside down that the youth are making up the rules and their parents are afraid to offend them by setting guidelines and insisting on moral, respectful and considerate behavior. Ironically, it is guidelines and boundaries that the children are screaming for with their outrageous, offensive behavior. They just feel more enraged because their parents and teachers don't care enough about them to set guidelines and insist on moral, respectful and considerate behavior. Our youth craves guidance. Instead parents, teachers and other adults encourage these bizarre cries for help, which just infuriates the youth even more, and drives them to become more offensive and more bizarre.
I feel that homosexual activists and sympathizers are acting in a similar way, by insisting that we accommodate them with the bizarre concept of gay marriage. The activists are screaming for attention in a way that is sure to offend and shock normal, decent, family oriented and religious people. The homosexual activists revel in the attention that they are getting on this matter and the outrage that they are stirring up. I do not believe that most homosexuals give a hoot about homosexual marriage. I believe that the activists are raising a ruckus in an effort to get attention, mock religion, blur the line between normal and abnormal behavior and to mock that which is good. They are screaming for attention because they know something is wrong, just as many of today's youth are screaming for attention with their popular culture.
About ten years ago, I asked a homosexual friend if he was in favor of homosexual marriage. At the time, he said he was not. However, after ten years of the activists, media and public schools normalizing homosexuality and the activists pushing for homosexual marriage and raising a ruckus about it, I am not sure how he feels today.
Civil unions or legal contracts would give homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples, yet the activists insist on using the word marriage. They have succeeded in changing the definition of the word marriage in the dictionary and on the web. They have convinced republican judges in California that marriage between same sex couples is a "right" that "should" be in the constitution. They have convinced nearly half of all Americans that they are entitled to use the word marriage and the homosexual union be equivalent to heterosexual unions. Of course this is preposterous, because no children can come from this union. Homosexuals already have the right to adopt children. There can be no reason for them insisting on this "right" other that seeking attention and mocking marriage, religion, and that which is good and normal.
About 20 years ago, a lesbian co-worker was taking the day off of work to attend a homosexual rally. When I asked her the purpose of the rally, she laughed and said "to raise a ruckus". Today's homosexual activists are succeeding in raising a ruckus. The old mantra "we're here, we're queer, and we're in your face" is the true purpose of the gay activists when they push for homosexual marriage, when they hold "gay pride parades", and when they have bizarre public exhibitions such as the Folsom Street Fair, in San Fransisco.
The exact same reasoning applies to those who oppose the military because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Many universities have kicked ROTC off of their campuses. They claim the reason to be because that the military discriminates against homosexuals. People who are fervently against the military and all that it does and stands for, are the ones protesting for homosexuals to openly be allowed in the services. These people are disingenuous because they resent the military and everything it stands for, and just use the homosexual issue as a way of attacking the military and making problems for the military. The same logic applies to those who are insisting on homosexual marriage. They resent religion and the institution of marriage and by calling for homosexual marriage they are mocking and weakening those institutions that they feel resentment toward. Marriage and family is the foundation of our society. They are too nearsighted to see that when society falls apart, they too will go down with the ship.
Unfortunately, the institutions of marriage, religion and the "intact family" have already been weakened in today's America. The Family is the foundation that our society was built on. This foundation is being removed before my very eyes. Nearly thirty percent of today's women give birth without the benefit of marriage. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Families that do stay together, often have two working parents, which often leave their children unsupervised. The results are clear to see in today's popular culture, but more importantly, I see a lack of integrity in our political leaders that I have never seen before. Our Congress have found legal ways of being corrupt and undermining our country, while entrenching themselves in power and becoming richer. This is done in plain sight of the public, but the public is so confused, they can no longer tell right from wrong, truth from lies or good from evil. While the public is distracted with this nonsense about homosexual marriage, our freedoms, our wealth, our strength and our sovereignty is being taken away before our very eyes. But that is a topic for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
