Liberals Versus Conservatives: Six opposing core beliefs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an article and video about the false information that Knox continues to promote: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/60893

Here is an excerpt:

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

Here are some excerpts from an article that explains why Knox is wrong on the scientific evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the link to the entire article: http://stmichaelsociety.com/2010/02/05/harry-knox-pope-benedict-and-the-debate-on-condoms-in-africa/

Here is an excerpt from an article that shows exactly who Harry Knox is:

.......Harry Knox, who is a member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group......

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

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

Here is the link to the entire article: http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46192

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

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

Deception and Manipulation Has Become Cool and Commonplace in Today's Media

Balloon Boy's Parents Should Be Prosecuted for Making Their Children Lie for a Publicity Stunt

Yesterday afternoon, the nations attention was focused on a loose helium balloon in Colorado. A six year old boy was allegedly aboard this saucer shaped balloon that got loose and was streaking through the Colorado skies.

All major news stations had live coverage as cameras tracked the balloon and rescue teams were dispatched. When the balloon finally landed, sixty miles away in a farm field, there was no boy aboard. Hours later, the boy was found hiding in a box in the attic of his house.

Later that night, when questioned by Wolfe Blitzer of CNN, the Boy said that he was hiding in the attic "for a show". Later in the interview, the boy's father became very defensive and indignant when Wolfe Blitzer asked why his son said that we were doing this for a show. Here is a link to a related article with 2 embedded videos.

In today's upside down world, parents are proud to teach their children to lie for TV reality shows. Some may call it acting or posing, but those are euphemisms for deception.

This family was on TV reality show about wife swapping twice. The father also has produced films of dangerous storms, while "storm chasing" in his car with his young son.

Most TV reality shows promote the superficial false values of popularity (self promotion), thrill seeking, selfishness, fame, money, pleasure, sex and beauty.

IMHO, the parents of these children are guilty of child abuse because they are damaging the spirit and soul of their children by instilling false values in order to exploit them for their own selfish reasons.

This just in: The entire family appeared of 4 morning news shows including Good Morning America and the Today Show. These unbelievable videos show the boy getting sick in the middle of the interviews with his family. The host appears concerned about the young boy's health while his parents are more interested in the TV interview. The host then has to prompt the 6 year old's mother to pry herself away from the TV camera to take care of her child.

Amazingly, after that interview, the Family appeared on the Today show, where the young boy vomited again. Here is a link to an article with 2 more embedded videos.

Anita Dunn Is The Latest Radical In The White House To Be Uncovered By Glenn Beck

I just finished watching an amazing Glenn Beck Show. He played a video of Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, singing the praises of Chairman Mao Tse Tung to a high school audience in June.

This past weekend, Anita Dunn was all over the news because she was trashing FOX news for 9 minutes straight on a CNN interview. Dunn said that FOX news was an arm of the Republican party and She says that FOX reports lies and distortions. Later, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that many stories on FOX News are untrue.

The white house has declared all out war on FOX news because they are reporting on the radical agenda of many of Obama's appointees that the MSM will not cover.

Glenn Beck's watch dogs are doing a great job uncovering the radical beliefs of those closest to the Obama White House. I fear for Beck's life.

The way Obama is controlling the media by discrediting his opponents, is common in communist, Marxist, tyrannical and totalitarian regimes, not Democratic Republics.

On the campaign trail, Obama promised to fundamentally change America. He does not like America's fundamentals, and the rewards and risks of our capitalist system.

Now, as president, Obama is sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, yet he loathes our constitution and the visions of our founding fathers. He is trying to bring "redistributive change" to America. Hopefully, it will become so obvious before irreversible damage is done.  Just like Zayela was removed from Honduras before he shredded their constitution, I hope that Obama is removed from office before he and his minions fundamentally change America.

What's Wrong With Today's Youth? Answer: Their Parents

Many of today's parents are single, unmarried, divorced, selfish, attention seeking, thrill seekers and/or immature themselves.

Often they have given up their role as parent in favor of trying to be their child's friend. Some rely on their children for emotional support and their own self esteem. They place their child's "self-esteem" above his sense of responsibility and obligation to himself, to his family, to his country and to God. Often the parents themselves have little concern for those things and crave the acceptance of their children in return for their appeasement and friendship.

Today's youth have grown up with a sense of entitlement because everything has been provided for them with little effort of their own. Many Americans have become accustomed to depending upon things being provided for them. Even those who live in "so-called" poverty need not worry about providing their own food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care. These things are no longer their priorities, they consider them rights not pursuits. Instead, pleasure and thrill seeking have become their paramount pursuits and many seek them through, drugs, attention, jewels, seduction, sex, and control, especially in our poorest neighborhoods.

This situation is unsustainable. Rugged individualism and self reliance made this nation become prosperous, powerful and free. Our unique "American exceptionalism" is withering on the vine in the current social and political climate.

Our founding fathers were inspired by God and the universal spiritual principles of man and nature. Those spiritual principles are no longer the foundation of American society. Without that foundation we are easily distracted, manipulated and deceived.

Politicians, the media and today's popular-culture are distracting, deceiving and manipulating today's American public, especially our youth, in a way that I have never seen before in this country. However, I have read about this type of manipulation being used to gain the support of an unsuspecting public in Cuba, Nazi Germany and Venezuela.

We are at the brink of very, very, very dangerous times. I fear that our nation will collapse if we don't wake up soon.

Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Health Care

The health-care crisis began when the public was sold on the deception that health-care is a right. It is not. Rights are defined as things that our government can not take away from us, among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The government has no obligation to provide you with these things, but we are protected from the government taking them away. Of course there are exceptions like taxes, prisons, capitol punishment and eminent domain, but I will not discuss them here. The point that I am making is that rights are not entitlements.

In my opinion, there are seven reasons why health-care costs have risen so dramatically within our lifetime.

1) Insurance is a financial tool intended to reduce one's risk of unlikely, yet catastrophic events. The entire system becomes skewed when insurance is used for every-day expenses, such as routine doctor's visits, minor injuries and common illnesses. Automobile insurance guards against major losses from the unlikely event of fire, theft or collision. Automobile insurance was never intended to pay for routine maintenance, repairs, tolls and parking fees. Likewise, health insurance was never intended to cover routine check-ups, child birth, coughs, colds, childhood measles, mumps, etc. The fore mentioned heath concerns should be planned for and payed for as they arise. Just as most responsible Americans save for their retirement, responsible Americans need to save for the inevitability of their own medical costs. Just as with retirement, the only way you won't need to plan for these expenses is if you die early.

2) Medical advancements, innovations, procedures, drugs and equipment are available today that were not available 50 years ago. There is no doubt that many of these things save lives that would have been lost 50 years ago, however if we wish to take advantage of the miracles of modern medicine, we must pay for it.

Examples of these lifesaving innovations are kidney dialysis and transplant, open heart surgery, cancer treatments, laser treatments, MRIs, CT scans, etc.

We should be grateful that these miracles of modern medicine are available in today's day and age. John Rockefeller couldn't have attained lifesaving kidney dialysis if he required it in his time, yet this lifesaving treatment is available to everyone in today's America. As far as health-care is concerned, today's poorer Americans have much more health care available to them than wealthy people of days-gone-by.

The money that today's wealthy people spend for expensive drugs and "cutting edge" treatments, pave the way for routine and inexpensive treatments for the future. We need wealthy people to pay the high costs of cutting edge treatment so that some day, it will be within everyone's reach. This can only happen in a free market.

3) Most patients do not pay directly for their own treatment. When the government or an insurance company pays, this limits the options for the doctor and the patient. Often more expensive options are available, while cheaper ones are not.

For example, Medicare payed for my father's physical therapy for 3 months after he suffered a stroke. I estimate that the cost to medicare was $600.00 per week for the PT. After medicare determined that My father was no-longer entitled to physical therapy, I enrolled him in 2 programs that offer him virtually the same therapy, using virtually the same equipment and the same intensive supervision and one-on-one attention, in the same facility, for approximately $70.00 per week.

Another example is that physicians automatically prescribe costly name brand medications for those who's insurance will cover the cost. They often ask about your coverage before deciding whether to prescribe a costly name brand medication or a generic. It the patient was paying directly, the physician would discuss the pros and cons of name-brand versus generic medications and the patient would ultimately decide. This process would undoubtedly bring the price of name-brand drugs down because the drug companies would try to get a bigger market share by being more competitive.

4) The huge role that government plays in health-care (Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs) has crowded out families, churches and private charities from filling these needs. Families, Churches and charities used to provide a safety net for those in need. They did it in a more personal and efficient manner. Centralized bureaucracies are always inefficient and impersonal and leave the those they are trying to help with a feeling of resentment and entitlement, rather than with gratitude, appreciation and a willingness to give back.

5) Defensive medicine costs billions. A large expense in Americas health care system is defending heath care providers from costly litigations, judgments and settlements. Doctors often provide unnecessary testing, medications and procedures, just to "cover their asses" in case something goes awry. When something does go wrong, which is inevitable in any business, huge settlements and judgments are paid out. Health care providers routinely pay huge malpractice insurance premiums to protect themselves from this inevitability.

All medical outcomes are not good ones, regardless of good intentions. When things go wrong, patients and families seek someone to blame and to pay restitution. If the patients were paying for each test, procedure and medication, they would choose the most cost effective procedures and have no one to blame if something was undetected because a costly test was not done.

6) Hospital costs are extremely high because they must provide free emergency services to anyone who shows up at their door, regardless of their ability to pay for services rendered. The cost of uncollected hospital bills is passed on to all of the other paying customers.

I agree that this is the humane thing to do in a society that can afford this, but it turns out that people are taking advantage of this by showing up at ER's for non emergency treatment. This not only clogs up ER's with people who don't belong there, it also increases the cost and availability for true emergency services.

Just like there are penalties for those who commit false alarms for fire and police services, there should be criminal and civil penalties for those who misuse emergency medical services. Also, those who can not pay, should have their wages garnished to pay for their treatments, until they have payed for the emergency services that saved there life or their limbs. Few people will argue that there life or limbs are not worth any price.

This will lead to much less unnecessary use of ERs and this will create the need for more Charity hospitals, free clinics and/or cheaper hospitals that would offer an cheaper alternative for those with financial hardships.. Charitable Americans have always risen to meet such challenges in the past and will meet these challenges in the future by their own free will.

7) "behavioral risks". Health care expenses should be higher for those who practice behaviors that present a risk to one's own health. By some estimates, behavior accounts for one third of health care costs.

The cost of all auto insurance policies is based on the driver's behavior. Motorists with bad driving records, including traffic tickets, accidents, DUIs, and sports car owners are charged substantially higher premiums.

If the government sets the rules regarding health insurance premiums and rationing of limited medical resources, it is likely that the government will dictate personal behavior. They might make certain unhealthy behaviors illegal or certain risky behaviors might deem patients ineligible for certain treatments. This is an infringement on personal freedoms that I strongly oppose.

Once the government takes over, it is likely that the government will regulate the foods that we are allowed to eat, the sports that we are allowed to participate in and even the number of children we are allowed to bear. The government may mandate that we we take certain medications (cholesterol medications, blood pressure medications, psychotropic medications, etc). Smokers may be ineligible for heart surgery.

There are also many risky behaviors that are actually politically correct. I have read studies that assert that homosexual behavior is linked to more disease and a shorter lifespan, than heterosexual married men. Homosexual men are barred from donating blood due to this risk. Women who practice lesbian behavior are more prone to domestic violence, suicide, drug abuse and mental illness than married women.

Of course when the government gets involved, they will skew their regulations to accommodate political correctness which is inherently unfair.

My niece has a knee injury that is exacerbated by dancing. If the government sets more health-care rules, she might be barred from dancing and or working as an aerobics instructor, or face forfeiture of any treatment for related injuries. Although I think that my niece should have enough sense not to dance on bum knee, I think it is her right to make her own choices and live with the consequences and associated expenses.

Of course much government control in the areas that I mentioned already exists. The Government already provides half of our health-care through Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs. If we expand government involvement; regulations, restrictions and loss of freedoms will surely increase.

In my opinion, the government does not belong in the health care business. However, once they get their foot in the door, it is impossible to get them out because people feel a sense of entitlement. When the size and scope of the federal government increases, our individual freedoms, choices and aspirations will decrease. Our constitution guarantees us freedom from the government infringing on our right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of health care.

The Political Dichotomy Of Liberals Vs. Conservatives

A political dichotomy does exist in today's America. However, this dichotomy is not between Republicans and Democrats, it is between conservatives and liberals. There is also a spineless group in the middle called moderates.

Democratic and Republican officials both fit into the same group. Our elected officials are politicians, not political ideologues. Our elected officials from both parties are narcissistic, power hungry POLITICIANS. They are mostly ALL of the same ilk. As the federal government grows in size, scope and power, our elected officials grow increasingly more corrupt. Politicians are hardly guided by political ideology. Politicians deceive and manipulate an unsuspecting public for their own selfishness, empowerment, enrichment and egotistical desires.

Having said that, I do not see many liberals running down to their local military recruiting office to sign up to serve and protect our great nation. They are too busy vandalizing the recruiting offices and harassing our military. Today's voluntary armed forces are made up overwhelmingly of conservatives who believe in a power greater than themselves, a loving God, just like our farmers.

Liberals, on average, donate much less money and time toward charitable giving, yet they insist that "other peoples money" be confiscated in the form of taxes for the charities (social programs) of THEIR choice.

My personal experience has taught me that most farmers work long hours and risk all of their assets every year in order to grow food at a very low price for the rest of us. My experience has shown me that most hardworking farmers in rural America are conservatives. They are a dying breed as their children flee the rural areas and fill our cities where they are free to seek higher education (indoctrination), and the thrills and luxuries of our modern world that modern farming has made possible for the vast majority of the American public.

I have spent several periods of my life as a homeless bum in large cities. I have found that most all of the bums were drug addicts, alcoholics and mentally ill people. I fit into all three categories. Liberals insist on enabling these neerdowells with social programs that help them maintain themselves with food and shelter from the elements, while they commit crimes to support their drug habits.

It was liberals that closed the mental hospitals in order to give mentally ill people their freedom. Now they have the freedom to roam the streets aimlessly and defecate and urinate in the streets and on themselves as they harass ordinary people who have the misfortune of passing by.

It is also true that most people who professionally sing, dance and are professional phonies (actors) are liberals. Also, most indoctrinators (teachers and professors) are liberals. Most sexual deviants (transgender, transsexuals and homosexuals) that I have met are liberals.

A dichotomy exists between spiritual leaders and modern educators, between producers of goods and providers of entertainment, between those who are responsible and those who are irresponsible, between those who fight for our American culture, traditions, values and institutions and who want to tear down our culture, tradition, values and institutions, between rugged individuals and an ever-growing centralized government. The latter groups make us weaker, poorer and less free. The former groups have made America the wealthiest, freest, most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen.

Why Liberals Can't Debate Rationally

I think that I have discovered a core difference between conservatives and liberals. (Yes, I am making a generalization. I have found that most of my generalizations are generally true.)

Liberals often shy away from reasoned debate. Perhaps that is why they are not successful at talk radio. Liberals like to be encouraged, validated and complemented by those who think like them. To a liberal, it is abhorrent, inflammatory and offensive to imply that their conclusions could be faulty. Liberals feel that they are being attacked when someone disagrees with them. When humor is used, they feel that they are being mocked. That is why they get defensive and make claims of being victimized by offensive and inflammatory remarks. To me, speaking the truth is never as offensive as being insincere.

When challenged, liberals often strike back emotionally, with name calling, character assassinations and discrediting anyone that disagrees with them because their feelings and self esteem are hurt when someone tries to prove that their opinion is faulty. Liberals often think that those who challenge their ideas are attacking them personally and they become combative. They would much rather discuss topics with like minded people who validate their opinions, rather than those who would challenge them. Liberal views are generally based on their own self esteem. They espouse opinions that make them feel good about themselves. This is why good intentions often outweigh unintended consequences. Liberals are easily duped into supporting those who articulate positions that make them feel better about themselves. Tough love is wasted on liberals. Liberals often dismiss the cold hard truth as mean spirited.

Juan Williams, NPR commentator and a liberal political pundit, recently said that although most of his views are quite liberal, sometimes his views are not liberal enough to please those on the far left. He said that the criticism that he receives from the far left is far more vicious and personal than the criticism that he receives from the far right. Dennis Miller, a left wing Hollywood comedian who turned conservative after 9/11, says the exact same thing.

Of course you will now dutifully tell me that I am being unfair by stereotyping liberals. You will take the high ground and claim that you never use such unfair tactics to describe conservatives. Well, if the shoe fits, wear it. What I am saying applies to most all liberals that I engage in debate with. To sum it up, liberals prefer to commiserate with people who validate their views, rather than debating those who disagree. Liberals find it offensive when someone else thinks that they are wrong. If a liberal can not convince you that he is right, then you are being narrow-minded, irrational, unscientific, bigoted, offensive or inflammatory. Those are the conclusions that liberals often come to about most of my opinions. Liberals do not seek to find common-ground. Liberals do not respectfully disagree. Liberals often consider my opinions and those who think like me as inferior. Often liberals will make excuses for not engaging into a debate in the arena of ideas. They will say that they don't want to lower themselves or they will discredit their opponent.

I base the above opinions on my personal experience.

Do Liberals Have a Feminized Agenda?

Call me a male chauvinist pig, but I believe that men and women are intrinsically different, with different strengths and weaknesses.

Examples of feminine strengths include: compassion, empathy, tenderness, nurturing support of children and appreciation of style, beauty and art. Masculine strengths include: discipline, strength, reason, intellectual curiosity, courage and competitiveness.

There are also negative attributes pertaining to each sex. These need to be restrained by the opposite sex. Negative attributes for women include: Jealousy, seduction, manipulation, vanity and unreasoned emotion. Negative attributes common in men include: violence, irresponsibility, intimidation and sexual deviancy.

Some women do possess the desirable characteristics suited for leadership. However, I believe that men are intrinsically better suited to make the tough dispassionate decisions, required by leadership. The emotional detachment of many men (which women constantly complain about), leads to less emotional distraction, when making decisions of great consequence. On the other hand, women are generally more suited to provide the nurturing support, required to raise the best next generation of Americans. The child rearing instinct is so strong in most women, that most children who live with a single parent, live with their mother, at her insistence. Of course these are all generalizations. But I maintain that these generalizations are "generally" accurate.

The popular notion that men's and women's roles are interchangeable in society is not backed-up by reason, common sense and my personal experience. Liberalism is basically a feminine view-point, which many of today's men have adapted. The liberal agenda, places much emphasis on children, child safety, the importance of feelings, and the importance of the arts. This is why liberals are protective of our soldiers, rather that motivated to win wars and strengthen our nation.

Many liberals belief's border on socialism. Socialism is a vain attempt at trying to make sure that everyone is taken-care" of. Many of today's liberals are driven by emotion, rather than reason. This is why liberals dominate the "arts", while conservatives dominate math and engineering fields.

Most everything that I write in my articles is obvious to me, because my thoughts are based on reason, commonsense and my personal observations. I find it amazing that a majority of our society, has been so brainwashed, that they no longer rely on their own eyes, experiences and common sense.

Men and women are intrinsically different, with different strengths and weaknesses that complement each other. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part, you do not see many male pre-school teachers or female auto mechanics. However, in recent years, we have seen a huge increase in the number of female doctors and real estate professionals. This is because , in a free society, people choose careers that they feel most suited for.

Affirmative action in education and employment, pushes people into fields that they are not qualified for or not suited for. This results the in failure and dissatisfaction of many of the participants, as well as lower overall performance in a particular field.

Many local and state governments recognize that women intrinsically have less physical strength and stature than men. As a result, they have lowered the physical requirements for women entering the police and fire departments. In these cases, the overall performance of those police and fire department is diminished, because strength and stature are required to subdue criminals and carry victims out of burning buildings. However, our feminized society is more interested in assuaging feelings of envy, rather than achieving positive results.

Have welfare programs reduced poverty? Have liberal judges reduced crime? Have liberal public school programs improved education? Have public housing programs reduced homelessness? These questions are rarely asked. Failed feminized ideas are often continued and expanded in an effort to show that we care about a problem, regardless of the outcome. When someone stands up to point out that a social program is not working and should be eliminated, he is demonized as being heartless, hateful and bigoted. This is why liberal programs face little opposition.

Female weaknesses are often justified and female strengths are held up as examples for men to follow. Many male strengths are considered to be weaknesses. This explains most aspects of the liberal agenda. For example: The public schools and universities, embrace and celebrate sensitive female characteristics, while deploring that which is brutish, competitive and male. Our current President, George Bush, is nothing but an brutish war-monger, in the eyes of many liberals, despite the fact that his unpopular decisions have kept our homeland safe, in the war on terror, for the past seven years.

Discipline, restraint, traditional family values and religion are not popular among liberals, because they diminish the seductive and manipulative powers that femininity affords. However, manipulation, seduction and class envy are formidable weapons in the liberals' arsenal.

Do not underestimate to power of females' secret weapons of tears(victim hood), seduction(sexuality), and deception (little white lies with ends that justify their means). No man can stand up to these weapons, and this is why liberals and women have gained the upper hand. These negative aspects of femininity have to be clearly seen for what they are, if balance is to be restored. Only then can our culture be restored to the strength, prosperity and freedom that has made the US the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen.

Unfortunately, Republicans are also becoming feminized and becoming swallowed-up by today's feminized agenda. There is a vacuum in conservative leadership. Who is willing to speak the obvious but harsh truth? Just like in the fable:" The Emperors New Clothes", the cold hard truth can be dangerous and may not be popular at first. However, the only way to survive as a culture and a nation, is to place reason, discipline and courage, before emotions, seductions and deceptions.

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.

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?

Black-Jack, Jacked-Up Cars and Jacking Us Around

Yesterday I was at Hollywood Florida's Hard Rock Hotel and Casino for the first time in over a year. They moved the "poker room" to a separate 2 story building in the "shopping mall" out the back door of the main casino. In the main casino, they added numerous black-jack tables located in about five clusters scattered throughout the casino. They also have three card poker and baccarat. The minimums on the new card-games are ridiculous. The cheapest black-jack tables have a 15 dollar minimum, followed by many 25, 50 and 100 dollar tables. The 25 dollar tables seem to be the most popular, but most all of the tables were filled. The parking lot was also filled, I had a hard time finding a parking spot in the parking garage.

The patrons were a curious mix of silver haired seniors and young hipsters showing off their bold tattoos, enhanced breasts, weirdly colored hair styles, pierced lips, brows, noses and navels. The most common symbol tattooed on the bodies of the youth, printed on their clothing and molded in their jewelry and belt buckles was the "skull and crossbones". I would estimate that 25% of the young hipsters sported this hideous symbol which represents poison, death, degradation and decay. Printed prominently on the wall of this magnificent casino was a quote from an idolized rock star and drug addict Todd Rundgren. It read: "I don't want to work, I just want to bang on these drums all day". While the young and the old alike were mesmerized by their hopes of thrills, fortune, good times, and euphoria, I could not help but notice how spiritually bankrupt our materially wealthy society has become.

How can the politicians claim that we are in a recession that has caused total economic devastation if so many people are gambling (and mostly losing) at such high stakes at the casinos? Apparently the gas prices, now down to $3.70 per gallon in FL, are not stopping people from driving their huge pick-up trucks and SUVs that were clogging the roads on a Sunday, when few people needed to get to work or drive out of necessity. Many of the vehicles on the road had expensive, yet frivolous modifications such as custom wheels, some costing up to $1,000 for each wheel, custom sound systems with huge sub-woofers, also costing thousands, custom paint jobs, also costing thousands and of course, modified exhaust systems that also draw attention to their vehicles costing hundreds of dollars to install.

Of course you may argue that there is a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. However, the casino hires thousands of workers and the custom auto industry is mostly run by small independent businessmen. What I see with my eyes greatly varies from what I hear on the news and from the democratic candidates. Most people I see, have plenty and are living and gambling above their means.

Politicians are also talking about the masses of people who were duped into taking out home loans that they couldn't afford and are now facing foreclosure and homelessness due to the mean, cold-hearted banking industry. They fail to tell you that all of the foreclosures that I personally know about are due to people using the real-estate market like they use the Hard Rock Casino's high priced black jack tables. Due to congressional legislation that encouraged home loans to be made available to poor people (people who have a track record of being unsuccessful at earning and managing money), many loans were issued to people who were irresponsible with their own money and their own financial future.

I personally know of several cases of people who were issued huge mortgage loans, with little or no down payment, based on documentation that was fraudulent and false income levels that went unchecked. Salesmen, who were more interested in their monthly commissions, rather than the future of their industry, were only too happy to bend the already lenient rules. Salesmen, mortgage brokers and loan officers also looked the other way by not checking accuracy of loan applications and accepting or encouraging inflated home appraisals.Of course the banks should have checked their applications for accuracy, but how can individuals blame the banks because they lied on their applications and the banks didn't bother to check. Illegal aliens were even granted home loans with fraudulent ID and social-security numbers. When they were unable to repay their loan, the bank refinanced their loans and gave them several hundred thousand dollars more, based on the increase in the appraised value of their home while the market was soaring. Instead of using this money to build their future and/or stabilize their economic future, most high risk homeowners, with few exceptions, spent this windfall on vacations, cars, trucks, custom wheels, paint jobs, sound systems and exhaust, and living living above their means. When the real estate market stopped rising, they were unable to pay their loans and blamed their misfortune on the banking industry for taking advantage of them.

The entire real estate debacle has been cause by spiritual depravity on many levels. Just like the hard Rock Casino lures in its unsuspecting customers with the promise of something for nothing; the government, the real estate industry and the banking industry dangled the same "carrot" in front of millions of spiritually bankrupt folks who thought that greed and luck would solve all of their problems. The unspoken truth is that hard work, responsibility, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, humility, gratitude, honesty and integrity is what creates material wealth as well as spiritual growth. These principles build individual character, promote peace and prosperity, reduce crime, as well as improving our eternal souls. Why don't I ever hear this from our political leaders and activists?

Currently, our economy is based upon borrowing from our future instead of building our future. Our entire economy, including government and individuals is borrowing for luxuries instead of saving for necessities of the inevitable rainy day. Cities are building new sports arenas while bridges and other infrastructure decay in disrepair. Most Americans are living beyond their means in order to seek thrills, show off and keep up with the Joneses. Our government is in the hole for 55 trillion dollars including the unfunded liability of our Social Security and Medicare programs.For the first time in American history , personal borrowing is larger than personal savings. Chasing greed and hoping for luck will inevitably bring our economy and our high standard of living down the the level of struggling for our very survival. What has taken twenty-four decades to build up is being squandered before my eyes in only a few decades. All that is needed to reverse this alarming trend, is to return to the spiritual principles that this nation was founded upon and made us the wealthiest, freest, most powerful nation on earth.

Father-Daughter Talk

The following is a humorous little story that I read in a local newsletter,"The Chatterbox". This eloquent little story clearly exposes the folly of liberalism and the hypocrisy of what is being taught to our gullible youth on today's college campuses. I couldn't have put it better myself. This story was well written and made an excellent point.

Father Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her last year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Libertarian, which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?" She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies. But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter visibly shocked by her father's suggestion angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Libertarian Party!"

This story is just another example of how liberals call on the rest of us to follow their ideology. Often, they deem themselves exempt from their own rhetoric, because they consider themselves more compassionate and intelligent. In other words, they know what is best for the rest of us. Individual responsibility based on universal spiritual principles is the basis of conservatism. Equality of outcome is what liberals are always preaching, regardless of individual behavior. They are driven by emotions that make them feel like they are doing good, when in fact, the unintended consequences of their actions, often exacerbate to problems that they are attempting to solve. Examples are:

affirmative action in education and the workforce
Affirmative action, by definition, results in minorities that are less capable, competent and motivated than their peers in universities and the workplace. This may lead to animosity directed toward less qualified minorities from their peers who have sacrificed and struggled to get better grades and hone their skills. They are often left feeling embittered when they are passed up for college admittance and jobs due to affirmative action programs which place less qualified minorities in front of them. This will actually perpetuate the myth that minorities are not as intelligent or capable as their fellow students and co-workers. Minority students and workers who are placed in universities and jobs above their capabilities are more likely to fail. They themselves will be worse off in the long run because they are placed in schools and jobs that they do not have the necessary skills, abilities and motivation to be successful at. Affirmative action sets up the people who it is supposed to help, for failure.

tax the rich and give to the poor
This policy will discourage achievement, productivity and the creation of wealth. By over-taxing wealthy, successful people, they will be less motivated to risk their capitol through business investment. It also contributes to the spiritual degradation of the "poor".

Business investment is what creates jobs for the poor and middle class. If the profits are taxed away from the rich, they simply will not be motivated to invest and create jobs. Also, high taxes leave the rich with less money to spend on luxury items, like furs, yachts, mansions, private planes, etc. Entire industries will lose their customer base. This means that millions of small businesses, contractors and middle-class employees will lose their source of income that is derived from manufacturing and servicing these luxury items.

What liberals fail to see is that poor and middle class people have the ability and opportunity to move up the economic ladder when properly motivated by profits and the chance of becoming rich. By punishing the rich, you are actually reducing the "poor" and middle-class's chances of improving their lot in life and becoming the rich themselves. Most of today's millionaires are self-made men who have worked their way up from poor and middle class backgrounds. The US does not have a class system that is set in stone. People are constantly moving up and out of lower economic situations every day. Man's natural motivation to succeed works best when not deterred by taxes on the rich and government subsidies for the "poor".

Families, Churches, and private charities are best at helping the truly needy. When people give voluntarily, it improves their character as well as efficiently filling a need. It is better to give than receive. This is a universal spiritual principle that applies to voluntarily giving. Having your wealth seized by the government, for what politicians have convinced constituents are altruistic purposes, is of no spiritual benefit to anyone. Also, the government bureaucracies that are charged with helping the poor are inefficient at best and corrupt at worse. Voluntary charity is spiritually uplifting. Forced redistribution of wealth can have a corrupting effect on all who are involved.

When people are over taxed, they feel embittered, used and unmotivated. A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. The data shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent. The lower 50 percent of wage earners, paid only 3 percent of federal income taxes.

Politicians often pit one class against another in order to secure political power. They offer programs to "help" the "poor", but the "poor" often feel resentment because government assistance is never enough. Human nature is such, that getting something for nothing, breeds laziness, apathy and resentment. This results in a permanent underclass that remains dependent on inadequate government programs. They remain beholden to the politicians that dole out the freebies. As a result much of this underclass will become unmotivated to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and remain in and endless cycle of poverty. An unmotivated underclass is a drain on our economy as well as spiritually degrading for the poor themselves.

Taxing the rich and subsidising the poor contributes to negative economic growth as well as a vicious cycle leading to spiritual depravity. Although many liberals have noble altruistic motives, the unintended consequences of their "feel good" solutions often exacerbate the problems they are trying to solve.

Top Song on the Hit Parade

I was recently upset when I learned that the number one pop song for the past 8 weeks is called "I Kissed a Girl and I liked it". The shocking part is that this song is sung by a girl. This song normalizes, celebrates and encourages experimentation with homosexuality by teenage girls. These are a few lines in the song: "I kissed a girl and I liked it, The taste of her cherry chapstick, I kissed a girl just to try it ". The entire song lyrics are copied below.

Many young people will say that this is just a song and that the lyrics don't have any significant meaning to them. Just like they say the lyrics of vile rap songs are funny, cool or just plain "art", they also consider this song so cool that they made it number one on the hit parade. But if songs have no meaning, why are so many of us emotional when we hear the national anthem? Why do Madison Avenue advertising firms use songs successfully to promote products. Why do most young people emulate popular musicians in dress, attitude and language? This song promotes experimentation with homosexuality, which is abnormal and unhealthy. As a result, today's youth are blurring the line and unable to distinguish between normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy and right and wrong behavior. What do you think?

Katy Perry
I Kissed A Girl

This was never the way I planned
Not my intention
I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion
It's not what, I'm used to
Just wanna try you on
I'm curious for you
Caught my attention

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

No, I don't even know your name
It doesn't matter
Your my experimental game
Just human nature
It's not what, good girls do
Not how they should behave
My head gets so confused
Hard to obey

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

Us girls we are so magical
Soft skin, red lips, so kissable
Hard to resist so touchable
Too good to deny it
Ain't no big deal, it's innocent

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

Gary

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.

Gas Prices Cause Louisiana Women to Resort to 'Pole Dancing'

Today I read an article that describes a Baton Rouge TV station's story about a local stripper. This Newbuster article is entitled: "Gas Prices Cause Louisiana Women to Resort to 'Pole Dancing" .

I am tired of hearing reports and watching movies about strippers and hookers, that make them out to be virtuous women who are forced to to lower their high moral standards for a noble cause. This story describes college student, who is a single mother, that was forced to resort to stripping, in order to buy milk and diapers for her baby.

It is typical of liberals to believe that the ends justify the means in tough situations. For example, they say that people resort to crime because they are poor. They say that people resort to drugs because of peer pressure and lack of after-school-programs. They say that people resort to terrorism because of social injustice. etc. If these excuses for bad behavior are true, then how come the crime rate during the great depression of the 1930's, during a period of economic strife and racial segregation, was lower that it has been ever since? Unbelievably, I heard the liberal media explain this by claiming that the crime rate was low during the 30s because there was less to steal during those lean years. Here is a short article that I found that blames everything for today's high crime rates except the decay in universal moral standards.

The truth is, people do bad things because they are bad people, for whatever reason. They do not follow universal spiritual principles which inevitably results in misery in their lives and those around them. Of course, redemption is possible, but becoming a stripper is not a path to redemption. Some principles that might lead to redemption are self discipline, selflessness, humility, honesty, integrity, forgiveness, self sacrifice, faith and family (family=mother+father+children, forever). I do not hear the news media and movies touting these principles as a way to deal with a tough situation.

Usually women who become hookers and strippers, (yes, most strippers will have sex with you in the back room for a substantial fee, or they will arrange for a tryst after work), do so because they have extremely low moral standards. Today's news media prefer to blame low self esteem. The truth is, low self esteem is a result shameful behavior. Shame should be used as a motivator to change negative behavior. Instead, today's media would have you think that there is no shame in stripping and prostitution.

Most often women become strippers/hookers to support their drug habit. Often these women are continually allowing themselves to be victimized by men (pimps, boyfriends, bosses, etc.) You might say that I am stereotyping, yes I am, but this stereotype happens to be true in the majority of cases. Why does the media look for the least likely scenario; a virtuous stripper/hooker, and then publicize her story? First off, I would not believe the story of a hooker/stripper, they are usually not credible.

In the case of the "Duke University Lacrosse Team" rape scandal (fabrication), it turned out that the stripper/hooker was lying all along. They found semen from 3 different men in her body, but not from the accused rapists. However the media did not question her credibility and never mentioned that she was a hooker.

Every policeman that I heard calling into talk radio stations said that stripper/hookers often lie to police about being raped. They often threaten men that they will "cry rape" if they don't give them money, drugs or even a ride. The media played up this lying hooker/stripper in Durham NC as if she were a virtuous women, who was forced to strip because of hard times. The truth is, she was a mentally ill, drug addicted prostitute that has a history of making false rape accusations.

The generalizations that I am making are true for the vast majority of hooker/strippers, yet they constantly make movies about the least likely scenarios for hooker/strippers. For example in the movie "Pretty Women", Julia Roberts was a good, honest, virtuous woman, just waiting for her prince charming to come along. I was amazed that in the movie she did not accept any money until the end of the week. How likely is that. In most cases a woman who is willing to sell her body is also willing to lie, cheat and steal for money, but Roberts was as honest and trusting as the day is long. There were times in the movie where she actually turned down money. I don't think that any hooker in history has turned down money from a client.

I also saw a "made for TV movie" portraying a hooker as struggling single mother who is working her way through school because her husband abandoned her and she had no choice. This is a very common theme, there were several movies made along these lines. The truth is that hookers who do have children, rarely take care of them. They are usually taken care of by a family member, the father, or they are wards of the state. They are often taken away from the stripper/hooker because she is an unfit mother, usually because of neglect or because she is a drug addict.

The movie "Taxi Driver" portrayed a hooker fairly accurately. The actual locations were actually real life "whore strolls" and hooker hotels. However, I think that she was rescued in the end from her life of prostitution (I don't remember). In real life, that wouldn't last long because they usually go back to their old habits of drugs and seeking out men that will abuse them. They are often addicted to the lifestyle.

I would be willing to bet that my stereotypes about hooker/strippers are accurate 90% of the time, yet the liberals in the media and in the arts, almost always portray them as innocent victims with a hard-luck story. The news story about a stripper/hooker that took to "that life" because of the high price of gas is preposterous, but it is not inconsistent that a stripper/hooker would make up that type of excuse. Stripper/hookers usually make up rationalizations for their bad behavior. If you research it further, it is likely that she has a criminal record for drugs, prostitution, shoplifting and trespassing. It is also likely that she has a record with the DCFS (department of children and family services). Of course it is possible that she is part of the small minority that doesn't fit that mold, but I do not think that the TV stations budget would be big enough to sift through hundreds of hooker/strippers until they found the right one to fit their template.

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.