Wish I'd said that!

In recent decades, the ACLU has used its so-called "wall" to fight tooth and nail to prevent government sponsorship of the Pledge of Allegiance, memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, nativity scenes, Bible displays, and virtually every other acknowdgement of America's religious heritage.

At the same time, it is worthwhile to note that there have been some instances in which the ACLU has endorsed public displays of religion. For example, When New York City Mayor Rudi Giuliani threatened to cut taxpayer funding from the Brooklyn Museum of Art for displaying a painting of the Virgin Mary with cow dung and pictures of female sexual organs pasted all over her body, the ACLU was first in line to defend the display. U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon ruled that New York City's elected officials were not allowed to place conditions on the museum's funding.

In another instance, the ACLU offered its support to the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts, after the agency sponsored an art show featuring "Piss Christ" - an exhibit consisting of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine.

In the ACLU's myopic world, it appears that the only permissible publicly-funded displays of religion are those which blatantly mock or disparage the Christian faith.

-- Indefensible: 10 Ways the ACLU is Destroying America, Sam Kastensmidt, 2006

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

If Only They Were Joking

After many wars' experience in how to end a conflict on the winning side (or at least, not being occupied by the winner), it seems just a little strange to learn that our government is now trying to win the war in Afghanistan by treating enemy combatants as common criminals instead of soldiers or terrorists. Yep; in its infinite wisdom the Obama malAdministration has begun reading Miranda rights to al Qaeda terrorists captured on the battlefield. Even some congressmen, like Mike Rogers (R-MI) are demanding to know why this is being done. Rogers, a former FBI agent and Army captain, thinks this new policy is "lunacy."

Is it just me, or does this sound more like a strategy for defeat than for victory, or even for protecting this nation? Treating foreign combatants as criminals opens up a can of worms that our enemies can use to hook and gut us. International courts and lawsuits are only a couple of the major problems that will likely erupt from this policy.

This is what happens when you let lawyers out of the courtroom and put them in charge of things they have absolutely no clue about, like running manufacturing corporations and countries. Let me be clear: uniformed soldiers who fight for their own country and/or display some semblance of honor and humaneness should be treated as we would like to be treated; but terrorists - who have no regard for humanity in general or innocent civilians in particular, nor conduct themselves with any semblance of honor - should not be entitled to use our own legal system (such as it is) against us.

There is real danger ahead for those of us who love our country and our freedoms. Obama and his "Comrade cadre"of fellow hard-leftists are doing all they can to weaken the United States; to throw us into continual turmoil and division. Unlike most pundits who fear being turned off (and I can't blame them), I believe these elements are all part of a plan to secure personal power, and that any political agenda put forth is nothing more than cover. I do believe we have someone with the aspirations for total power of an Adolf Hitler-type. If that makes me sound crazy, well, time will tell. I wish all was well in the world, but I refuse to be one of the millions of Neville Brands out there, sucking up the platitudes and lies that are designed to put them to sleep. I do not want to suffer the hindsight of Martin Niemoller.

Like father, like son? How many people are surprised by a new report by a psychologist who doesn't swallow the politically-correct bilge of the APA, which indicates children who are raised by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves? According to Dr. Trayce Hansen, between 8% and 21% of young children - who are more and more being forced into such situations by the courts - tend to identify themselves as "non-heterosexual" as they grow older.

In the interest of truth, she notes that "Some researchers who uncovered sexual preference differences between homosexually and heterosexually parented chilren, nonetheless declared in their research summaries that no differences were found. However, Dr. Hansen also notes that "All social scientists who conduct research in this emotionally-charged area have personal biases."

Honestly, who would ever have suspected that young children raised in view of a particular lifestyle - regardless of that lifestyle - would tend to take on the characteristics of the parents; especially in a loving and/or nurturing environment. (Hey; even serial killers can love their own children.)

Let me state it loud and clear; it isn't about personal hatred for homosexuals. Homosexuality is at its root a deviant behavior because it is antithetical to the propagation of the species. If someone wants to engage in it privately, that is between them and God; but it should not be allowed to become dominant in the human culture, because the results would eventually be catastrophic for society and the gene pool, for a number of reasons. Among these is the simple fact that homosexuality is, by its nature, a parasitic behavior in the sense that it cannot reproduce its own kind biologically. Therefore, the behavior must be passed on by force, seduction and/or guile - convincing others that it is acceptable, whether appealing to curiousity or sexually frustrated adults or children (who are essentially information sponges designed to learn from their environment.) There are several methods useful for doing this, but most often it is done by association, temptation, or acclimatization.

However you prefer to view it, this 'acclimatization' of children into the homosexual deathstyle is wrong. It is the redirecting of basic human nature into an eventually destructive behavior.

A promise made... I've mentioned them before; Oath-Keepers is a growing network of primarily (but not exclusively) military veterans and active-duty personnel who take the oath of enlistment seriously. They pledge not to support the government when it crosses the line of constitutional limits and individual freedoms; meaning they would refuse to obey immoral, illegal or unconstitutional orders against their fellow Americans. It's an idea that should be planted in every American's mind.

That's not funny. David Letterman engaged in absolutely mindless, low-brow gutter 'humor' earlier this week, taking aim squarely at the Palin family. In an apparent effort to further ingratiate himself with the immoral majority, he has singled out the bright light of conservative politics for abuse. Not content to jab at Governor Sarah, Letterman sank to telling sick sex jokes about 14-year-old Willow Palin, who had accompanied her parents to a Yankees game. Letterman 'joked' that, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” You know it's low when even NOW defends the Palins. When was the last time you heard them come out of the woodwork to speak on behalf of a conservative woman?

Letterman finally responded to the mountain of criticism with an 'apology' that was as insincere as it was cynical. No couth.

Both Palin parents have responded to the tasteless jibe much more reservedly than I would have, although they got their point across with class. Just as well. Letterman seemed to have forgotten that Sarah can shoot and gut a caribou, and Todd is probably even better at those skills than she is. Frankly, I'm sure some of us would be willing to go to jail just to show the dirtbag what 'respect' and 'family honor' is about. That there was actually laughter from his audience at the crass jokes speaks volumes about how low our culture has become.

No comments:

Post a Comment