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.

Cash For Clunkers

I find that most complex issues can be easily understood when broken down into their basic roots. Such is the case with the new federal program dubbed "Cash For Clunkers".

This federal program pays qualified participants up to $4,500 for their trade in when they purchase a new car that gets better gas mileage. The trade-in (clunker) must have an EPA estimated Miles-per-Gallon that is 4 MPG less than the new car that they purchase. This program also stipulates that that the trade-in must be destroyed and recycled into scrap metal, plastic and glass. None of the used car parts may be sold.

Click on video below to view the destruction of the engine of a "cash for clunkers" trade-in as required by federal regulations.


The stated purpose of this federal program is two-fold. First, to stimulate car sales in a soft market. Second, to improve the gas economy of the average vehicle on the road. However, like most well intentioned federal programs, there are always unintended negative consequences.

When I break down this program to its basics, one thing becomes very clear. This program will reduce the availability of used cars in the marketplace by destroying many usable vehicles rather than reselling them. Although new car sales will be stimulated by this program, there will be less used cars available, thus the price of used cars will increase and the sales of used cars will decrease. This will immediately have a negative economic effect on the used car business, the auto-repair business and the auto-parts business.

Also, poor people and young people who don't have trade-ins or have not established good credit, will now be priced out of the used car market. This program will make used cars unavailable or too pricey for those who would have been able to purchase used cars previously. This program reduces the number of cars on the road, because it destroys used cars rather than reselling them. There is no doubt that this program will make cars unavailable to many Americans.

In addition, some people who previously did not qualify for car loans, may now be eligible because of the huge down-payment provided by the "cash for clunkers" program. Undoubtedly, many of these newly qualified buyers will default on their auto loans, just as many under qualified "sub prime" borrowers defaulted on their housing loans.

Another negative economic consequence would be that many people will be induced to buy new cars now , rather than waiting for their car to wear out. They will be trading in a car that was already paid for and they will now go into debt in order to finance their new car. Although the improved fuel economy will save them between $25 and $100 per month, their new car loan will likely cost them between $300 and $500 per month. Due to their higher expenses, they will cut down on spending in other areas thus having a negative impact on other segments of the economy.

Finally, there are negative environmental consequences when you destroy usable vehicles, even if the glass, metal and plastic are recycled. There is much hazardous waste contained in each and every junk vehicle. This waste includes used motor oil, transmission fluid, grease, brake fluid, anti-freeze, battery acid, explosives contained in airbags, mercury contained in switches and lead. It is costly to recycle or properly dispose of this hazardous waste. It is also impossible to properly dispose of it all. Residues that remain will find their way into landfills along with many other auto parts that can not be recycled. Also, it takes a lot of energy and natural resources to produce a new car, even if some of the materials are recycled. It is much cleaner for our environment to keep an old car in good working order, as opposed to destroying it and building a new one from scratch. The auto plants and their suppliers use lots of energy and raw materials to produce each new car. All of that energy and most of the materials can be saved by stretching the life of the older cars.

Common sense and my personal experience tells me that when economic times are hard, it is best to repair and patch what you have, rather than destroying it and buying a new one. At the very least, our nation will be better off is we fix up our assets during tough economic times. At the very least, we can sell them so someone else can make use of them, rather than destroying them and forcing many people to do without.

It is fundamentally wrong to destroy usable assets. This is true whether it be done at the hands of vandals or at the hands of the federal government under the guise of the "cash for clunkers" program.

Harvard Professor Henry Gates and US President Barack Obama Promote Racial Profiling of White Police Officers

Elite Universities Promote Racism

Have you heard the recent story about the Harvard Professor, Henry Gates, who accused a police sergeant, James Crowley, of racism and racial "profiling"?

The police responded to a 911 call from a neighbor who observed 2 men breaking into Prof. Gates' house. It turned out that Gates himself had broken into his own house because he forgot his key. When the police arrived, they asked Gates for identification to verify that he lived there. Gates immediately became belligerent, verbally abusive and uncooperative with the cops. He accused the white police officer of racism.

The ridiculous and untrue allegations of racism, racial profiling were affirmed by President Obama during his press conference last Wednesday. Obama accused the police of acting "stupidly" and he said that anyone would have been angered by the situation that Prof Gates found himself in. Here is the video of Obama's comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LucTPdK8VTc

Of course it is ridiculous that anyone would have been angry in that situation. Most people would have thanked the police and their neighbor for "looking out" for them and politely cooperated with the police. Only someone with a "chip on his shoulder" would be angry with a police officer who was protecting his own property in response to a call from his neighbor. The police report confirms that this particular Harvard professor has anathema for white policemen. IMHO, this professor, like many others, are teaching their own prejudices to their unsuspecting and naive students.

Click here for the official police report on this incident: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF

If you examine all of the known facts in this case, it appears that Prof. Gates is guilty of racially profiling the white police officer. It appears that Prof. Gates was guilty of a "hate crime" because he broke the law by becoming disorderly and verbally abusive with a police officer, based solely on the officers race. Obviously the charges were dropped because Prof. Gates has the best lawyers in the world at Harvard Law school at his disposal who will spare no expense defending this petty case.

It turns out that Prof. Gates teaches African American studies at Harvard. IMHO, African American studies classes are designed to promote racial disparity in America by blaming white people for the condition of blacks. These classes emphasise white racism against blacks, while ignoring or actually justifying black racism against whites. Click on the following link to read an excellent article that makes this point.: http://patterico.com/2009/07/24/the-officer-didnt-stereotype-henry-louis-gates-henry-louis-gates-stereotyped-the-officer/

In my opinion, we should strive to become a color blind society. This goal will not be achieved by pigeonholing people into distinct racial and ethnic groups and then pitting one group against another in an effort to achieve equal outcomes in all areas. I believe that we should judge each incident on it's own merits without regard to race and/or ethnicity what-so-ever. I believe this is what Martin Luther King meant when he said: "Don't judge by the color of one's skin, but by the content of their character".

Clearly, Professor Gates judged Sergeant Crowley solely because he was a white police officer questioning a black man. In my opinion, Professor Gates exhibited racist behavior by prejudging the police officer based on his race.

This behavior is right out of the liberal playbook. Liberals like to divide people into two groups, victims and victimizers. According to what I hear from the mainstream media and from university professors, most all blacks and Hispanics are victims. Most all police are victimizers, especially the white cops. I suspect that Prof. Gates believes in this dichotomy with every fiber of his being. The reason why I say this is because the good professor is still claiming to be a victim of racial profiling in this case.

During previous years I have had similar discussions regarding other cases of so-called police brutality. My point has always been that the best way to avoid being a victim of police brutality is to be respectful and cooperative when dealing with the police. Do not run from the police unless you are sure that you can get away. If you are caught after running, your chances of getting beaten increase dramatically. If you verbally and/or physically combative with the police, you might get hurt. This happens to be true regardless of race, however, when a black man is abused by a white cop the victim often plays the race card. With the support of the liberal media, the charges are usually dropped against the alleged criminal and charges are brought against the police officer. It is obvious that this environment makes it difficult for police to effectively and safely perform their duties while protecting themselves and the public.

Why don't schools and universities teach their students be respectful and cooperative when dealing with the police? Instead they teach today's youth not to cooperate with cops and to push their "rights" to the limit. In effect, they are teaching them to infuriate the police to the point of abuse. In many cases, the victim hopes that abuse takes place, so that they can get publicity and/or sue. Also, the slightest hit of racism and/or abuse can help to get the original charges dropped.

From what I read about this case, it appears that Prof. Gates egged-on sergeant Crowley in an effort to prove his belief that white police treat black men unfairly. In my extensive experience with police, they generally treat you the same way that you treat them.

The only motivation that I can think of for the professor's behavior was to purposely get himself arrested and/or verbally abused and then make a big stink about it. Since Gates is a friend of Obama's, I wouldn't be surprised if he had that question planted at Obama's news conference. Questions at past Obama news conferences have been staged. Obama's answer might have been prepared.

If the professor thought that he was in any danger what-so-ever, he would have shown respect for the cops. Liberals are often very brave when they are in no real danger. This episode played out exactly like Prof. Gates intended. As a result of this incident he has been invited to the White house to have a beer with President Obama and to discuss the issue of racial profiling. Prof. Gates, like many successful liberals, is a master manipulator. The sad part is that he is deceiving and manipulating America's youth in his classrooms every day.

Is Healthcare Worth The High Cost?

The following Quotes are taken from last night's broadcast of CBS news as reported in this newsbusters article.

I have heard these two points made many times by the MSM and by politicians. I have always been disturbed by them. It seems to me that we should be grateful that modern-day heath care is available. Modern health-care is a luxury that has never been available to humanity before. It is astonishing that something that has never been available in the past, is now considered an inalienable right by many in the media and in politics.

"Since 1999, health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent -- four times as much as wages."

In the past decade, costly medical research, medications, revolutionary equipment and minimally invasive surgical techniques have been developed. New lifesaving treatments and quality-of-life improvements are available today that were not available a decade ago. New diagnostic equipment has been invented and made widely available. It stands to reason, that the cost of the development and implementation of these improvements to our heath-care system need to be paid for. It is a good thing that we are devoting a larger portion of our incomes to lifesaving and quality-of-life improvements due to medical advancements.

"And about one and a half million American families lose their homes to foreclosure every year because of sky high medical bills."

Freedom is defined as the ability to make your own choices. Today we have the freedom to choose life-saving medical diagnoses and treatments that were not available a generation ago. Often these treatments are costly and tough choices must be made. We are free to chose between costly medical treatment and the possible forfeiture of our savings and home. We are also free to hold on to our assets and risk the primitive treatments that were available generations ago. Today we have more health-care choices because many treatments are available today that were not available years ago. Although the cost is higher, we have more freedom to choose today. . In the past, death and/or discomfort was our only option.

IMHO, socialized health-care will reduce our health care options in the future.

Obama's Czars Plan Radical Changes

Obama has appointed 28 Czars. These Czars have not been vetted nor confirmed by congress. For the most part, these Czars duplicate the roles of Obama's cabinet secretaries, with one important difference. Czars are accountable to no one but the president.

Van Jones, Obama's "Green Energy Jobs Czar", is an admitted communist and anarchist. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sam-theodosopoulos/2009/07/10/fox-news-notes-communist-past-green-jobs-czar

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet. http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Why is our country changing without anyone noticing. We never had 28 Czars in the White House before. This needs to be challenged constitutionally. Obama is filling the White House with entire departments that have no congressional oversight nor system of checks and balances. Is the real power being wielded by these new Czars rather than the Cabinet Secretaries? Why didn't the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, accompany Obama on his recent summit tour in Europe? Are Obama's cabinet secretaries purely figureheads for ceremonial purposes without any real power?

Why is the executive branch making up new rules as it goes along? Our country is changing radically and no one is noticing.

The following is a list of current White House Czars:
1. Herb Allison-TARP Czar
2. Alan Bersin-Border Czar
3. Dennis Blair-Intelligence Czar
4. John Brennan-Terrorism Czar
5. Carol Browner-Energy Czar
6. Adolfo Carrion, Jr-Urban Affairs Czar
7. Ashton Carter-Weapons Czar
8. Aneesh Chopra-Technology Czar
9. Jeffrey Crowley-AIDS Czar
10. Cameron Davis-Great Lakes Czar
11. Nancy-Ann DeParle-Health Czar
12. Earl Devaney-Stimulus Accountability Czar
13. Joshua DuBois-Faith-based Czar
14. Kenneth Feinberg-Pay Czar
15. Danny Fried-Guantanamo Closure Czar
16. J. Scott Gration-Sudan Czar
17. Richard Holbrooke-Afghanistan Czar
18. John Holdren-Science Czar
19. Van Jones Green-Jobs Czar
20. Gil Kerlikowske-Drug Czar
21. Vivek Kundra-Information Czar
22. George Mitchell-Mideast Peace Czar
23. Ed Montgomery-Car Czar
24. Dennis Ross-Mideast Policy Czar
25. Gary Samore-WMD Czar
26. Todd Stern-Climate Czar
27. Cass Sunstein-Regulatory Czar
28. Paul Volcker-Economic Czar

FOX News and Michael Jackson Prove: Only a Feminized Society Can Be Obsessed With Singing And Dancing

I don't understand why over 90% of all news coverage on FOX News was devoted to Michel Jackson last Thursday and Friday. I was disappointed that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly were preempted by coverage of Jackson's death which had no new information to add over the course of 2 days. As Glenn Beck repeatedly said: "the latest update reported that Michael Jackson is still dead".

Having said that, Michael Jackson was a troubled soul who could sing and dance extremely well. I don't understand why our culture places such a high value on singing and dancing.

Let me repeat that because this truly puzzles me. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY OUR CULTURE PLACES SUCH A HIGH VALUE ON SINGING AND DANCING. In my humble opinion, this is a sign of our society has become feminized.

On Friday there was virtually no news coverage on what might become the most significant legislation in Americas history. The House passed the "Cap and Trade" bill by a narrow margin. If this legislation is passed by the Senate, it will become the largest tax increase in US history. Also, it gives the federal government virtually limitless powers over the way that Americans live their lives.

IMHO, only a feminized public would be more interested in singing and dancing than the future of their country. FOX News was just giving the public what they wanted to see. If they did not give Jackson's death wall-to-wall coverage, many viewers would have simply found it elsewhere. However, I still blame FOX news for not having the integrity of covering the news on Thursday and Friday. FOX News should call itself FOX entertainment, because that is what it has proved itself to be.

Back to Jackson. Jackson's life is just another example that proves that an abusive childhood can cause mental disorders, including deviant sexual desires such as attraction to children and/or attraction to the same sex. IMHO, sexual deviants, like homosexuals, pedophiles, those with fetishes like cross dressing and S&M behavior, aren't born that way, but they are damaged emotionally in their early childhood which permanently alters their sexual desires.

Although Jackson was acquitted on all child molestation charges, Jackson has admitted that he has an affinity for children and he enjoys sleeping in the same bed as children and sees nothing wrong with this behavior (it is normal for him).

Also, Jackson found some legal loopholes that enabled him to purchase his own children by paying a woman (his wife at the time) to undergo in vitro fertilization and then turning the children over to him for adoption. Apparently, he chose not to conceive children like normal people do in order to have a family. As far as I know, he didn't have homosexual partner either. It appears that he was attracted only to children. However, it appears that he has not acted upon any illegal and/or immoral sexual relations with children. He was able to restrain himself, according to all indications in these abnormal sexual desires.

This proves two things:
1) Abusive childhood can lead to deviant sexual desires.
2) Deviant sexual desires can be controlled.

Girls Just Want To Have Fun

Abortion is a very selfish and cowardly act that affects both men and women.

First of all, once the baby is conceived, the father has no choice whether his potential son/daughter survives and whether his responsibility of fatherhood begins. It is only the woman's choice. Abortion laws only give the mother a choice, not the father.

Secondly, the vast majority of abortions are solely for the convenience of a pregnant woman. Most often abortions are performed because an unplanned pregnancy will interfere with the mothers schooling, career plans and/or dating and romantic life. IMHO, I think it is selfish and cowardly to deny life to your potential child because of those reasons. Could a man site those reasons for refusing to pay child support?

Even in today's day and age of moral equivalencies, most people understand that abortion is wrong and should only be used as a last resort. However, today's popular culture often glorifies, celebrates and embraces things that are wrong while they shun, mock and attack positive and noble lifestyles and institutions.

Adultery is clearly wrong, yet it is being celebrated and embraced by today's movies and TV shows. Our former president Clinton gained popularity after being "caught in the act" of adultery.

Divorce, which often results from adultery, affects a majority of today's married couples. Divorce is clearly wrong because it breaks a sacred promise between two people. However, divorce is no longer something to be ashamed of. Divorce is clearly one of the biggest failures that one can have in one's life, yet it is completely accepted by society without the slightest hint of stigma.

Why are liars and cheaters in business and politics despised, while liars and cheaters in marriage are not? If children are societies most valued asset, why are they utterly devalued by divorce and abortion?

Gang-bangers are celebrated and embraced. Today's popular culture imitates these psychotic outlaws in dress, language attitude and music. At the same time, Christianity, the Boy Scouts and the military are mocked and attacked by today's popular culture, the media, the arts and by universities.

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, putting personal happiness first, thrill seeking and self esteem.

Clearly, the main reason for abortion has nothing to do with privacy. The main reason why 50 million potential souls were snuffed out through abortion in this country is because "girls just want to have fun".

In this atmosphere, right and wrong become indistinguishable and unimportant. That is why there is no public dialogue on abortion. If this attitude was prevalent 50 years ago there would have been no civil rights movement. If this attitude prevailed 150 years ago, there would have been no abolition of slavery.

The civil rights movement and abolition of slavery began in the Church, not in academia. Reverend Martin Luther King was a Minister first and a PHD in theology second.

The civil right movement was not based on a struggle between fun and restraint. The abortion issue is. That is the reason why abortion proponents are reluctant to discuss this issue. It is because they must hide the main reason why they are pro-abortion. That reason being: "girls just want to have fun"

Socialized Health-Care Will Lead To Rationing Treatment and Euthanasia

President Obama said that his health-care plan will reduce the overall cost of medical treatment. What he didn't tell you was how that goal will be attained. Obama said that the government will cut inefficiencies and focus on prevention in order to cut costs. While prevention does save some money, it is a small fraction of the savings that death will bring. Denying certain costly procedures to those deemed by bureaucrats as "unlikely to benefit from them", will bring about the lions share of savings in a government run health-care program.

Most people spend most of their health-care dollars in the final years of their life. Imagine how much savings could be achieved if we simply did not treat people who are deemed to be "unlikely to benefit from treatment" because they are elderly. Cost savings could also be achieved by limiting care to those who contributed to their own maladies with unhealthy behavior such as excessive drinking, narcotics abuse, smoking, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle. Bureaucrats, not families, doctors or patients, will make these tough decisions if the government takes over our nations health-care system.

This approach will be totally justifiable when tough choices must be made by government bureaucrats, not individuals, about how to spend our limited health-care dollars. Procedures and surgeries for younger patients, with many more years of life expectancy potential, will obviously be a better investment than for treatment 80 year old infirm patients or chronic alcoholics.

Desperate times will call for desperate measures. Already our medicare and social-security systems are headed for bankruptcy. The best way to relieve this strain on an overburdened system is to ration care to the elderly and those who require a disproportionate share of medical care do to their lifestyle choices and unhealthy behavior.

Under Obama's proposals, euthanasia will eventually become an option. The government will run PSAs advising people that euthanasia is the patriotic thing to do for those who have no longer have the wherewithal to "give back" to their country in other ways.

There is no doubt that the cheapest form of health care is allowing patients to die. This has become part of health-care system in other countries with socialized medicine. Allowing patients to die will undoubtedly become part of an American socialized health-care system.

I have never seen a well intentioned liberal program that did not have "negative unintended consequences" that hurt the very same people that they were trying to help. In this case, nationalized health-care will limit expensive treatments to the elderly and to the poor the most.

The Liberal Agenda is Often a Racist Agenda

The political fallout that resulted from the recent shooting in the Holocaust Museum seemingly blames "right wing" racism as the culprit. Amazingly, the responsibility of the "individual" gunman is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media. This reaction serves to bolster my assertion that "collectivism" is a province of the left.

Collectivists often separate people into categories based on superficial differences such as race, income level, ethnicity and education. In my humble opinion, the important distinctions between people, are those of character and behavior. Collectivists often downplay or rationalize bad behavior, while emphasizing superficial differences of race and ethnicity.

Liberals find it hard to swallow that this deranged lone gunman acted on his own. News reports are trying to tie his actions to a white racist "collective". They are reporting that there is an increase of white supremacist racism in America. They are trying to connect imaginary dots to prove that he was just a pawn, that was "duped" into carrying out the dirty work of organized racist groups.

This is preposterous. White Americans have been cowered into showing extreme sensitivity toward all minorities, whether ethnic or racial. As a matter of fact, it has become so bad, that any criticism from the right on any person of color is considered as racist. Often criticism of Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor is deemed as racist based solely on the racial difference between them and their critics. Likewise opponents of illegal immigration are often labeled as xenophobes and racists. Also, opponents of gay marriage are often demonized as intolerant or bigoted.

Collectivist/Liberals look at one's race and ethnicity first, in an effort to categorize them and justify or criticize their behavior, and to demonize them or their critics. This is exemplified by affirmative action and racial quotas. On the other hand, most conservatives look at an individuals' behavior and character while completely ignoring his/her race.

In my experience, most racism in today's America originates from liberals and minorities themselves. A recent example is Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Yesterday, when Rev. Wright was asked if he had been contacted by Obama recently, he said:

"Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office," Wright said, according to Virginia's Daily Press. "They will not let him ... talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is."

Wrights response is indicative of someone who looks at "David Axelrod", (Obamas campaign manager and top aid) and other top ranking officials in the Obama administration as "Jews" rather than an individuals. Rev. Wright is clearly a racist who can't see the Forrest for the trees. This "us against them" mentality is prevalent among liberals. When today's civil rights leaders preach with this attitude, they do a disservice to those who they claim to support.

We need to hold individuals accountable for their actions. Racial differences are superficial and are only taken into account by shallow, narrow-minded people. Often racists, disguised as civil rights leaders, try to stir up the pot of racism, hoping that they will end up on top. Many of them make careers out of "race bating". A good example is "Al Sharpton",

Reverend Martin Luther King was one of the greatest civil rights leaders of all time. He did not preach messages of racial disparity or divisiveness. Instead, Martin Luther King said, "Judge not by the color of one's skin, but judge by the content of of one's character. This message applies to whites, blacks, and people of all colors. According to King's words, there is no such ting as "reverse discrimination". All people should be color blind and judge people solely on their character and behavior. The time for racial divisiveness is over and new era based on behavior, and character has begun. Although King also holds a PHD in theology, often, today's liberals downplay that he was inspired by God and not by academia.

Unfortunately, race baiters like, Sharpton, and Wright and many so-called liberals, still cling to politics that emphasize racial and ethnic differences rather than emphasizing the meaningful differences that differentiate us. These meaningful differences include character, behavior and personal choices.

Is Shame and Stigma a Necessary Part of a Healthy Society?

I was amazed when I heard a radio commercial for the "Ashley Madison Agency" this morning.

The Ashley Madison agency is an online dating web-site that specializes in finding dates for married people. I clicked on the site and found out that they charge $249.00 for a three month membership. They guarantee that you will have an "affair" or you get your money back. They claim to have nearly 4 million members. I didn't bother registering to find out more information. A limited amount of information can be gleaned from their home-page. here is the link: http://www.ashleymadison.com/

I find it amazing that advertisements that promote adultery are on main-stream talk radio stations. Adultery used to be illegal, now it is being marketed, promoted, packaged and sold shamelessly.

I understand that we are all imperfect and many people cheat on their spouses. However, it is infuriating that cheating has become accepted, celebrated and embraced by mainstream Americans. People literally can not tell right from wrong. This is the same feeling that I got during the Clinton impeachment hearings. I was Angry at Americans who accepted President Clinton's perjury and televised lies, rather than shaming him for it.

I understand that we are all imperfect and fall short at times. This is exactly why we often need help staying on the right track. Why is there no shame anymore? Isn't shame and stigma a nessisary part of a healthy society? Doesn't shame and stigma provide the nessisary motivation for us to do what is healthy and positive for ourselves, our families, our society and our nation?

I guess that there is some shame and stigma left in today's popular culture. Unfortunately it is used against conservatives, Christians and honorable Americans with traditional values.

Why Life's Obstacles Are a Necessary Part of Our Spiritual Life

A fundamental flaw in liberal thinking is that many liberals believe that all obstacles, in the road of life, are bad. I strongly disagree. I believe that God put obstacles in all of our paths to help us grow spiritually. IMHO, spiritual growth is the reason for being. Therefore, obstacles, sorrow, misfortunes, failures and even tragedies, are a nessisary part of our spiritual life, just as food and water are a nessisary part of our physical life. Often overcoming obstacles and dealing with them in accordance with universal spiritual principles, leads to spiritual growth, improves our eternal souls, and brings us closer to God.

I once saw an episode of "Twilight Zone" where a horrific low-life gangster died and was immediately sent to the "afterlife". In this afterlife, his every wish was granted and his every desire fulfilled. He lived in a luxurious mansion. He was surrounded by beautiful women who were willing to fulfill all of his fantasies. He had servants, fancy cars, luxurious clothing and he was very popular. Everyone laughed at his jokes and when he gambled, he always won.

At first he was overjoyed at his good fate. However, he was a bit surprised that an evil man like himself would end up in heaven.

As time went by, he became bored with all of his luxuries and good fortune. Pretty soon his boredom tuned into discontent, anger, displeasure, and torment. As strange as it seemed, he could no longer tolerate his good fortune. Everything was too predictable. He asked to lose occasionally when he gambled. But this only infuriated him more, because he knew that when he lost, it was because he had asked for it to be that way.

Finally, at the end of the program, he told the man in charge that he was no longer happy. He demanded to be happy. He said that he was supposed to be happy in heaven. The man in charge looked at him and laughed heartily. He said, "heaven, what made you think that you are in heaven?". This is the other place.

My point is that if liberals got everything that they thought would make an ideal world, they would be miserable and spiritually depraved. This is exactly what we are witnessing in today's popular culture.

Why Multiculturalism is Bad For America

Multiculturalism is the exact opposite of what our great American culture was founded upon. Most American Coins have the words "E Pluribus Unum" stamped on them. This means: "Out of many, One". America has always been a melting pot in which many diverse cultures are mixed together and have been transformed into a single great American culture in the end.

Our unique American culture has led us to be the freest, wealthiest, most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. This is NOT due to cultural diversity, but to the contrary, this was due to our founding principles and concept of "the American melting pot".

Freedom from religious persecution is one of our founding principles. Of course religious freedom is part of the American culture. However, a moral and religious people is required for self governance.

In today's day and age, Christianity is often ridiculed, mocked and discredited. Diverse cultures, that often lack faith in God and sometimes are incompatible with Jedeo-Christian principles, are often celebrated, embraced and encouraged by today's schools, the media, popular culture and the government. In my humble opinion, this trend needs to be reversed if we are to survive as a nation and a culture.

Our first founding document, The declaration of Independence states:

............We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".................

This simple document eventually led to the idea of self-governance as outlined in our constitution and our bill of rights. These ideas eventually led to the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement which set an example for the rest of the world. The experiment of American self-governance by a moral and religious people has brought charity, freedom and security to all corners of the globe. The American experiment has culminated in what later became the unique American culture.

Historically, many people have fled persecution, oppression and poverty to build a better life for their families in America. People from diverse cultures came to America with hopes and dreams of melting into our culture and raising American children who would have opportunities that were not available in their homeland. They left their old cultures behind to become Americans.

America became stronger when foreigners became Americanized. Immigrants took on American sounding names, they learned English, they sent their children to American schools, they dressed like Americans, they celebrated American holidays, they took pride in being American and they became part of the rich and wonderful American culture. For the most part, they left behind the culture, language and most of the customs of the land that they fled. This was true for my own grandparents and for most grandparents of my generation.

When we encouraged immigrants to take pride in America and become Americanized, we built a stronger, wealthier and freer nation.

If we encourage Americans to celebrate the various, cultures, languages and customs of the nations that these immigrants fled, America will inevitably become less united, weaker, poorer, more corrupt and less free, like the nations that these immigrants fled from in the first place.

Immigrants came here to seek a better life in the greatest nation that this world has ever seen. The more Americanized they become, the better they will be able to avail themselves of the boundless opportunities that America has to offer. We do ourselves and our immigrants a disservice if we do not insist on unity and pride in America's, culture, language and rich heritage.

United we stand, divided we will fall. Multiculturalism tends to divide, categorize and highlight the differences among people and cultures. Multiculturalism asks us to accept things that are not always in the best interest of America. The unique American culture has led us to prosper and grow and be a beacon of freedom and inspiration for the rest of the world. America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. This can only be diminished by diluting our rich culture, language and noble heritage with multiculturalism.

Wisdom and Humility are in Short Supply on University Campuses

Humility is a spiritual principle that I admire when I see it in others. Humility is the acknowledgment of our imperfections and flaws. Humility also acknowledges that we are all relatively ignorant and powerless compared to our creator and to all of the unknown knowledge and power in the vast universe. The more man learns, the more he comes to realize how much he does not know.

However, today's pervasive popular culture values the exact opposite. They admire the unmitigated hubris and braggadocio of those who define their success by popularity, wealth and pleasures. Achieving popularity, wealth, thrills and self esteem are touted as the highest goals in today's popular culture. Seeking physical and mental supremacy is lauded, while spiritual growth is ignored and/or mocked. I beleive that we all need to achieve physical, mental and spiritual growth in order to fulfil our human potential and to ensure that our nation remains strong, prosperous and free.

Today's universities teach unproven theories, as if they were fact. These theories include the alleged dangers of AGW (anthropogenic global warming), spontaneous creation, evolution, the evils of American history and diversity and multiculturalism as a virtue. On today's college campuses, public discussion about religion is discouraged and mocked, yet discourse on sexuality is encouraged and taught in classes. Students who have faith in God are often discredited as gullible, brainwashed, child-like, primitive, bigoted and narrow-minded. Those who experiment with "alternative" sexual preference and behavior are touted as open-minded, enlightened, modern and cool.

It is clear to me that everything is upside-down on today's college campuses. "Up" has become the new "down". Strong social pressure is brought to bear on those who refuse to "go along with the program". Diversity of race, language, culture and sexual preference is encouraged, while diversity in the "arena of the above-mentioned ideas", is discouraged. Those who do not fall in line are socially ostracized by their peers on university campuses. University staff encourages labeling people who hold the above beliefs as narrow-minded, bigoted and intolerant by university staff.

Wisdom is humbling. Today's popular culture, as evidenced by the pervasive attitude on today's university campuses, proves that wisdom and humility are both in short supply.

America: The Band Keeps Playing as the Great Ship Sinks

Our government is telling us that our nation is in a financial crisis because of too much borrowing and spending. The solution that they are implementing is more borrowing and spending at the highest levels in history.

What is really amazing is that most people are not challenging this solution which clearly defies reason, commonsense and personal experience. It seems like our leaders are purposely trying to destroy the American economy.

It seems that America's population is suffering from a collective "mental disorder". Today's popular culture seems to be in denial about many "plain truths" that seem so obvious to me, but most people are oblivious to. I feel like I am the only sane person in an insane asylum. This is scary because I know that I am not "normal" myself.

Today's America is reminiscent of the Titanic as she sank. The band kept playing as the great ship went down.

This was the feeling that I got when I recently toured the country. I was suprised to find that many huge, massive casinos had sprung up everywhere, even in the middle of rural areas in Kansas, Iowa and Wyoming. The reckless abandon that these casinos represent, seem to be a metaphor for the behavior and attitude of today's government and culture.

These casinos were filled with "senior citizens" who were happily squandering their life's savings and their children's inheritances for a few moments of joy and thrills in their remaining years.

The Spiritual Root Cause of America's Economic Woes

Why are liberals so vulgar and hateful?

Here is an exerpt from a liberal blog, the "dailykos", that made it to the top of the Kosmonauts’ recommended list:

F*** you Dick Cheney! F*** your pompous condecension. F*** your straw men! F*** your mischaracterizations! F*** your sniveling attempts to keep you and your buddies asses out of federal (somewhat offensive movie quote removed, happy now?) prison! F*** your presumption that we are a bunch of cowering idiots looking for daddy to protect us from the big bad terrorists. Just F*** YOU!...

Below the article is a poll asking if Cheney is an a-hole a f-ing a-hole, or pie. The "FA" option is winning as of Sunday morning, with more than 3,000 votes (and 94 percent of the total.)

Here is the link to the entire article (caution: the explitives are not cleaned up in the original version): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/21/11443/4167/275/733993

Can you imagine the reaction if a conservative blogger would launch this type of hateful emotional attack against Obama?

I have never seen this kind of unabashed hatred and vulgarity on any of the conservative websites that I frequent. The Daily Kos is one of the top liberal web-sites. Why do liberals get a pass for such bad behavior?

Why is it acceptable amongst liberals to display hate and intolerance against those who they disagree with? How can liberals also make accusations of intolerance and bigotry about anyone who disagrees with them.

The only answer that I can think of, is that liberalism is based on emotion, rather reason.

Have we lost all standards or is there a double standard? Why?

Our Corrupt Amoral Government is What We Deserve Because Con-men Can Only Trick Greedy, Dishonest and Amoral People

Often the truth is not popular. Currently, 40% of American children are born out of wedlock as our society is going to "hell in a hand-basket". IMHO, the current breakdown of our society in the area of crime, drugs, violence, huge prison population, illiteracy, corruption, spiritual depravity, disrespect, vulgarity and inconsideration is all due to the breakdown of the intact family.

Also, spirituality is largely ignored in modern child rearing. For our society to prosper and strengthen, we must place value on physical, mental and spiritual growth (body, mind and soul). In today's popular culture, we concentrate on the first two, but largely ignore the importance of spiritual growth and teaching universal spiritual principles to our children.

If you have helped foster this situation by producing b*astard children or by participating in the break up your own marriage, you should feel ashamed of yourself, because you are part of the problem.

I am sorry if my words hit close to home, but this is the unabashed truth as I see it.

We should look at ourselves for solutions, rather than pointing fingers at others. Our corrupt amoral government is what we deserve because con-men are only capable of tricking greedy, dishonest and amoral people. The rhetoric of many liberals, feminists and gay activists toward family values and universal spiritual principles is despicable.

This El Monte Police Officer Was Justified in Kicking This Suspect in Head as He Surrendered

Read the following article and watch the embedded video to understand a reasonable explanation from the police union about why this head-kick was justified. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/the-kick-deliver-by-an-el-monte-police-officer-to-the-head-of-a-car-chase-suspect-laying-on-the-ground-at-the-ending-of-a-tel.html

The reason that the Police union gave to justify kicking this suspect was that it was a distraction technique that police officers are taught in police training classes. Often a violent and unpredictable suspect will feign surrender, while planning a surprise attack on the arresting officer. Police are taught that a swift jolt to the head will disorient a suspect, so that they can handcuff the suspect without putting themselves at risk.

However, I believe that the kick delivered to this suspects head was justified for an entirely different reason. The cop was completely justified for kicking the suspect in the head because the suspect was obviously a "WASTE OF HUMAN FLESH".

Click on the above link to view the suspect's photo. Obviously this "waste of human flesh" has tattooed himself in such a way as to make himself look like a violent, psychotic felon who is prone to act, unpredictably and irrationally, especially when cornered like a rat.

The suspect's "markings" warned the officer that this suspect was potentially dangerous. The officer was justified by nullifying this potential threat with a kick to the head.

The only reason for a gangster in today's America to tattoo himself in such a manner, is to warn people that he is capable of psychotic, unpredictable,violent and irrational behavior. In other words, he is advertising that he is dangerous.

Similarly, poisonous snakes advertise the danger they pose with bight distinctive markings and sounds. These prominent markings on venomous snakes warns predators that these snakes are potentially dangerous. As a result they are usually left alone.

Just like the poisonous snakes, Extreme markings on gangsters are usually not idle bluffs. In most cases these anti-social sociopaths will be dead or in prison before their 21st birthday as a result of their psychotic behavior. However, their warnings are real, if you mess with them, you are likely to suffer a fatal blow, just like with venomous snakes..

However, even in nature there are posers. There are "look-alike" snakes that are harmless. However, the casual observer can easily confuse them with their deadly their deadly counterparts. In most cases, harmless snakes are protected by their markings that imitate those of their venomous counterparts. However, there are times when their bluff could lead to their death.

I understand why the psychotic, criminal gang member would use extreme tattoos to warn his enemies that he is capable of unpredictable, deadly behavior. However, I do not understand why otherwise normal youngsters in today's popular culture would imitate these violent, psychopathic, gangsters with tattoos, mannerisms, dress, gestures language, music and attitude.

The popularity of "gangster look-a-likes" in today's popular culture is more proof of the statement: .

"When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their head. Our children lose the ability to distinguish between, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, etc."

Rather than finding myself in the position of being a victim of police brutality, I personally avoid this scenario by taking the following precautions:

1) I don't run from the police unless I am certain that I will escape. If I am caught, I understand that I am at risk of being beaten.

2) I do not purposely alter my appearance to look like an unpredictable psychotic. This strategy may backfire on me.

3) I speak respectfully to the police. I call them "officer" and I say "yes sir" and "no sir". I keep my hands in full view of the police and make no sudden moves. I strictly follow police instructions whenever I have contact with them.

4) I do my best to keep my criminal record free of felony convictions.

This has been a winning formula for me in avoiding police brutality. I think that these ideas should be taught in schools, universities, the media and the "arts". Instead, they are teaching today's youths that police are brutal, racist and unfair. They are teaching our youth that police are their enemies rather than their strongest defense against psychotic criminals and the like.

Today's police are the most pacified police that this nation has ever seen. They are afraid to perform their job effectively, lest they get criminally charged, sued or fired for doing their job too well. There has undoubtedly been an increase in cases of police brutality brought against cops. It is ironic that this is happening in a time when America's police have become sissified and pacified and less actual brutality is actually being committed.

In many cases, today's police have lost the ability to protect themselves in the sissified environment that now defines most police forces. It stands to reason, that if the criminals fear the cops, rather than the other way around, there will be less crime and less people behind bars.

The commonsense way to reduce crime in America is to have tougher cops, stronger families, and independent citizens.

Another Example of Deranged Public Behavior by Liberal Activists

This is the latest, in a long line of examples of bad public behavior by liberal activists. I have posted about 8 examples of liberal activists who attempt to discredit, ridicule, insult, bully, intimidate and demonize their opposition publicly in an effort to discredit, silence and marginalize them.

I challenge anyone to provide equally bad behavior on the part of conservatives in recent history. So far, you have a lot of catching up to do.

This bad behavior is straight out of Saul Alinsky's book: "Rules for Radicals". The following article illustrates how Barack Obama also follows the 5 basic rules outlined in Alinsky's book: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTY5ZTA5NmEwMGY4MTFhNDg2ZDg4NjU2MDkxOGYyYTE=&w=MA==

Are Children Brought Up By Gay Parents, Worse Off Than Other Kids?

Homosexual couples with children make up a very small part of society. Most homosexual men, aren't interested in raising children. Of course there are exceptions. Often activists highlight these exceptions as if they were the rule.

However, many lesbian women do have a maternal instinct. Often they conceive these children through unnatural means. Sometimes their children are the result of conventional marriage or a heterosexual relationship before they switched teams, or perhaps they were switch hitters all along.

By the way, most people claim that homosexuals have no choice, but how do they excuse bi-sexual behavior? But i digress.

The majority of "lost children", who have no moral compass, are the result of single parents, products of divorce or products of amoral, irreligious parents who let the public schools, MTV and the popular culture influence their children's spiritual beliefs, or lack there-of.

I do not believe that children who are brought up by homosexual parents are worse off than children of single parents or products of divorce. However, most of them would fit into the third category of: "products of amoral, irreligious parents who let the public schools, MTV and the popular culture influence their children's spiritual life".

There are three legs to the stool of well being; They are mental, physical and spiritual well being. I feel that today's society largely ignores "spiritual" well being.

IMHO, drug addiction, crime, poverty and ignorance are the direct result of "spiritual poverty" that reside in our current society of unprecedented affluence and knowledge.

IMHO, spiritual poverty will undoubtedly lead to physical hardship and mental ignorance in this world and in the next.

Homosexual behavior will always be part of human society, But when you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, you turn reason and common sense on its head. The inevitable result will be less freedom, less prosperity and less safety for all.

Today's popular culture is tearing down the religious, spiritual and moral principles that have resulted in the unprecedented freedom, prosperity and safety that this nation has come to enjoy.

Unfortunately it is likely that those hit hardest by the consequences of this "spiritual vacuum", will be the homosexuals themselves. This is because only a society based on natural law (universal spiritual principles), understands that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Here is a recent article,from Oprah's website, that highlights how Oprah Winfrey, Hollywood stars, and today's popular culture, celebrate, embrace and encourage homosexual behavior. "Why Women Are Leaving Men For Other Women"

Is hate and intolerance on the part of liberal activists justifiable?

Some people on the far left take the issue of homosexual marriage, and the liberal agenda, very personally. However, IMHO, the ends do not justify the means. Hate and intolerance will not beget love and acceptance. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. Am I asking too much?

Here are three recent examples of hate and intolerance from gay and liberal activists:







Both sides feel that they have the moral high-ground. Many people on the right feel just as passionately about this issue as those on the left do. However, I do not see them behaving baldy. There may be exceptions, but the bad behavior on the left, far outweighs the bad behavior on the right.

Homosexual activists and some on the left are convinced that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions, is a God given right and thus guaranteed by our constitution. IMHO it is neither. IMHO gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is true that some activists and sympathizers on the left get their feelings hurt when others present a contrary opinion on this issue. That does not give them the right to publicly insult, blacklist, and harm the businesses and careers of others.

There are no laws on the books that restrict a persons right to life, liberty and property due to homosexual behavior. Only the laws of nature and God restrict the lives and liberties of homosexual behavior. Gods laws prevents children from resulting from homosexual unions. Gods laws makes those who practice homosexual behavior more susceptible to disease and early death. [Some think that universal health care is a right (which it is not) because it might help equalize the lifespans between the rich and the poor.] Natural law and/or Gods law, allows the innate characteristics of men and women to complement and restrain each other's positive and negative tendencies. Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions does not change these universal laws of God and nature.

However, US laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not restrict homosexual freedom under the law. If those who practice homosexual behavior would like to have a legally recognized union, very few people are opposed to that. However, most people resent the redefinition of the institution of marriage to include homosexual behavior. People on the right feel that they have a legitimate argument, just as much as people on the left feel that their argument is moral, just and fair.

Why is it that one side gives themselves permission to behave badly and intentionally hurt the, feelings, jobs, careers and businesses of those that they have a politically different opinion from? Both sides feel they justifiably have the moral high ground.

This issue can not be compared to race, because race is an innate human characteristic. Homosexual behavior is just that, a behavior. Many people may have overwhelming compulsions and desires to practice this behavior, however, it is still a behavior. Homosexual behavior is not compatible with the values that most of us assign to the institution of marriage. Most of us consider marriage to be the ideal situation to raise our children. There are other situations where children are raised, such as foster care, orphanages, single parents, and blended families However, the intact family that is encouraged through traditional marriage, combines the feminine characteristics of the natural mother and the masculine characteristics of the natural father to provide the best environment for a growing family and society. This has proved to be the ideal way to raise children and to move our society in a positive direction. IMHO, anything that diminishes this institution will lead to the weakening and eventual collapse of our society. Single parents, divorce and marital infidelity should also be discouraged for the same reason.

In California, gay rights activists have gone so far as to demand that the state eliminate marriage altogether and replace it with civil unions for everyone if homosexual marriage does not become the law of the land. This is the clearest example of gay activists' desire to diminish the importance and sanctity of the institution of marriage as we know it.

It is a sign of a declining society when one groups demonizes and intimidates another group for their deep seated beliefs. No one has the right to, intimidate, and bully good people with different opinions into silence. Yet homosexual activists are doing just that with their hateful and intolerant attacks against anyone who publicly states opposing opinions.

I do not object to a civil discussion on this matter, however, I am offended by callous, illegal, immoral and unacceptable behavior by many gay activists and their sympathizers. People opposed to gay marriage feel just as strongly about this issue, yet they restrain their behavior to civil discourse. It seems to me that activists on the left feel that all restraints on human behavior are wrong. This is not true, self restraint and legal restraint is what keeps us free, prosperous and strong.

Lets have a discussion where both sides are equally restrained in their rhetoric. Their may be some exceptions but,the only "hate speech" that I hear in this discussion comes from the left. The ends does not justify the means. Hate and intolerance will not beget love and acceptance. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. Am I asking too much?

Media Bias and Congressional Deception, the Phony Soldiers Episode

This story, Which I call the "phony soldiers episode", is the clearest example of media bias and congressional deception for political purposes in recent history.

It starts off in 2006, with a Tacoma man named Jesse Macbeth, who took the stage at demonstrations held in opposition to the U.S.’s role in Iraq. Macbeth claimed to be a decorated Iraq war veteran. Macbeth recounted tales of systemic murder and torture performed by US military on Iraqi civilians.

The AP ran a story about Macbeth's allegations of abuse by the US military. Naturally, the Mainstream media (MSM) took the ball and ran with it. The MSM was constantly running stories about how the US military was performing torture and murders. There were many other news stories with similar themes. One other that comes to mind in the "Haditha massacres".

As it tuned out, most of these stories turned out to be false. In reality, Macbeth only made it through only six weeks of Army basic training and never set foot in Iraq. Macbeth completely fabricated his stories about abuses by the US military in Iraq. Macbeth faced charges for making false statements. Macbeth was eventually convicted and sentenced to five months in prison in U.S. District Court in Seattle, three months in a halfway house after his release and three years of probation.

At this point, Rush Limbaugh was talking about media bias in regard to the Iraq war. Limbaugh called those who report falsely on US atrocities in Iraq as "media darlings". Limbaugh was explaining how the media was reporting on all allegations of military abuse with prominent coverage. Limbaugh pointed out that most of these allegations were subsequently proved to be false and the MSM would give the exonerations obscure coverage or no coverage at all.

Subsequently,Limbaugh used the term "phony soldiers" while talking to a caller. Rush was clearly referring to liars like Jesse Macbeth. Jesse Macbeth was a "phony soldier" because he never served in Iraq and made up stories about US military abuses.

At this point in time an unrelated poll came out that indicated that many soldiers in Iraq were opposed the way that Bush was handling the war. "Media Matters", a liberal watchdog of conservative radio, took Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment out of context and reported that Rush Limbaugh was calling soldiers who opposed Bush's Iraq policies "phony soldiers". The MSM picked up the ball and went on a rampage against Limbaugh. The MSM attacked Limbaugh as being unpatriotic. The MSM said that Limbaugh had disrespected our soldiers and veterans because he calls them "phony soldiers' when they oppose Bush's policies in Iraq.

This "out of context" quote of Rush saying "phony soldiers" reached fever pitch in the MSM. Unbelievably, several Senators made speeches on the Senate floor condemning Limbaugh for disrespecting our soldiers and military. They even talked abut voting for "censure" of Rush Limbaugh. After a couple of days of discussing Rush Limbaugh on the Senate floor, Harry Reid wrote a letter to Rush's syndicator. This is the letter that Harry Reid wrote: http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/RushLimbaughSmearLetter.pdf

Here is an unedited version of Limbaugh's broadcast where he used the term "phony soldiers". Please listen to the entire clip. Limbaugh uses the term phony soldiers in the beginning of the clip and then several minutes pass before he explains what he meant by the term phony (fake) soldiers. The MSM reports only report on the first part of this clip and completely ignores the context that Limbaugh provides at the end. Please listen to this entire clip. Here is the youtube video of Limbaugh's broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry5vNorVphM


Limbaugh brilliantly turned this incident to his advantage. As it turned out, Mark Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications, the recipient of Harry Reid's letter of admonition, also happens to be a friend of Rush Limbaugh. Mark Mays turned the letter over to Rush. Then Rush had a brilliant idea. Rush decided to publicly auction this letter off on EBay. Rush pledged to donate the proceeds of the auction to a charity that provides college scholarships for children of American servicemen who have been killed in action. Rush also pledged to match the winning bid with his own donation to that charity.

The auction ran about a week. It was very exciting. Rush announced the high bid every day on his show. Finally, at the end of the week, Rush announced the winning bid. The winning bid was 2.1 million dollars. This was the highest sale on EBay for charity ever. Rush also pledged to match the winning bid and Rush donated another 2.1 million dollars to the charity himself.

What is amazing is that the auction, the record sale price, the 4.2 million dollar donation to charity and the truth about the phony soldiers episode was barely covered by the MSM. In the end, Harry Reid tried to take credit for the events that led up to the 4.2 million dollar charitable donation, although Reid himself did not contribute a dime, even after being asked to donate by Limbaugh.

Here are two more links to youtube videos. The first video is when Limbaugh announces the auction. The second one is an interview on FOX News, a month after the auction, in which Rush confirms that the Charity had received 4.2 million dollars. Be sure to watch the second video in it's entirety. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PppO7hF7ugY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxMv5rlykpo&feature=related


In my humble opinion, this type of bias by the media was no mistake, it was intentional. This is part of a pattern that I constantly see. Do you know the whole story about the 8 marines that were arrested in Haditha, Iraq for war crimes? In a nutshell, they were locked up in a military prison for over a year during their murder trials. Eventually they where not only acquitted, but completely exonerated. The Judge actually called some of these men heroes for their part in the so called "Haditha massacre".

Time magazine wrote an article accusing Marines of atrocities in Haditha. Then the MSM picked up the ball and ran with this false accusations. Of course the media extensively covered the charges and constantly used the term "Haditha massacre". Democratic Pennsylvania Congressman Murtha publicly called these Marines cold blooded killers and actually fabricated stories about their atrocities during news interviews. The charges of atrocities were plastered all over the news reports in gruesome detail. However, the eventual outcome of the trial was barely mentioned by the MSM.

This video is typical of the coverage by the MSM, it includes a tape of congressman Murtha calling our troops cold blooded killers. It was later proved in court that these charges were based on the acuisations of enemy sympathizers in Iraq without any corroboration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7przeLpl2s
Please watch this entire report and extensive interview of Murtha.

Here is a blog about the outcome of the final trial. http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/haditha-marine-commander-exonerated-time-to-charge-murtha/

Tea Parties and Media Bias

The mainstream media (MSM) has been portraying the recent "tea party" demonstrations as being stirred up by rich businessmen, right wing extremists and racists. Nancy Pelocy (Democratic speaker of the house) characterizes these tax day demonstrators as astroturfers, rather than "grass roots" protesters. This is blatantly false.

I strongly disagree with the massive federal spending during the Bush administration. I disagreed with the 165 billion dollar Bush"tax rebate" program, when individuals were sent "$600 tax rebates. I also strongly disagreed with the 700 billion dollar TARP program that was pushed by Bush and McCain. I disagreed with the bailouts of banks, insurance companies, securities firms and automobile companies that were supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Most of the tea party demonstrators are opposed to big government and big government spending regardless of the political party that is responsible. I watched FOX News host, Glenn Beck, at a tea party at the Alamo in Texas yesterday. Beck got louder cheers when he blamed Republicans than when he blamed Democrats for irresponsible spending. Beck, myself and most demonstrators blame both parties, yet the MSM characterizes the tea party demonstrators as anti-Obama right wing extremists. They seek out demonstrators with extreme views to interview and then claim that they are representative of the entire crowd.

There is little difference between the economic policy of the two parties, other than the current administration is spending more and faster than ever before. The same could have been said about Bush at the time, but now the spending has become exceedingly reckless because many say that it will be impossible to repay our debt because of the current level of spending.

The MSM (main stream media) doesn't tell you that there are many Democrats also present at these tea parties. I am fed up with the current crop of politicians on both sides of the isle and so are most demonstrators. Although there are those who have specific right wing agendas that the MSM focuses on, most demonstrators are protesting against big government spending and the ever increasing the size and scope of the federal government.

Also, the MSM has coined the phrase "tea-bagging" to describe these demonstrators. They often use this double-entendre because "tea-bagging" is a word used to describe a sexual fetish. The MSM is now commonly referring to these demonstrators as "tea-baggers" which is a vulgar insult. This not-so-subtle insult is intended to humiliate the hundreds of thousands of legitimate "tea party" demonstrators. It is tantamount to calling civil rights demonstrators the "N" word. The mainstream media has lost all their journalistic standards. They are giggling like juveniles while using the term tea-bagging. Read the following column by Matt Taibbi of rolling stone magazine then click on the video to hear double-entendre by mainstream CNN journalist Anderson Cooper:

The so-called journalist, Matt Taibbi, wrote the following:

I have to say, I’m really enjoying this whole teabag thing. It’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming. For one thing, it’s brought together the words teabag and Michelle Malkin for me in a very powerful, thrilling sort of way. Not that I haven’t ever put those two concepts together before, but this is the first time it’s happened while in the process of reading her actual columns.

Previously Michelle Malkin’s writing was on the edge of unreadable; she’s sort of like Ann Coulter, only without that tiny fraction of P.T. Barnum/Mick Jagger-esque self-promotional flair that makes Coulter at least vaguely interesting. When you read Ann Coulter, you know you’re reading someone who would "F" a hippopotamus if she thought it would boost her Q rating. That’s a rare quality and it commands one’s attention.

Michelle Malkin doesn’t have that. She’s just a mean little dunce who’s wedged herself into a nicely paying career as a GOP spokesclown, and she’s going to ride that gig for as long as it keeps gas in her minivan.

And that’s fine, good for her. But that doesn’t make her readable. However, this move of hers to spearhead the teabag movement really adds an element to her writing that wasn’t there before. Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.

In this next set of clips, see how CNN reporter Susan Roesgen, argues with conservative "tea party" demonstrators. In the second clip she is shown sympathetically interviewing liberal activists. The contrast is stark.





Why is this CNN reporter pushing Obama's agenda and demonizing those opposed to it, rather than conducting objective interviews?

Finaly, here is an example of extreme liberal bias, and the wholesale, demonization, degradation and hatred of demonstrators at the April fifteenth tea parties. Click on the following video to hear the vitriolic rantings of actress-activist Janeane Garofalo, interviewed by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.


I maintain that this bias is the rule, not an exception. The MSM has become blatantly biased in their support of Obama and his policies to the point that they throw journalistic standards out the window in an effort to discredit and demonize public opposition to Obama's policies.

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.