The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “gay and lesbian”

Nancy Pelosi: The Iron-ing Lady Part 3 – Playing Chicken With Homosexuality

Since Chick-fil-A founder and president Dan Cathy “came out” and publicly opposed gay marriage, liberals, predictably, have been denouncing him and every conservative under the sun for what is unfairly, but routinely, referred to as bigotry, homophobia and hatred of an entire people.  Nancy Pelosi, our own Iron-ing Lady has clucked into the conversation as well.  And in case you ever wondered where she acquired her greasy fingers, she has provided us with that answer in her paltry attempt at sneering her nose at Chick-fl-A, and conservatives, while endearing herself to those gays and lesbians who are just weak-minded enough to overlook her condescension towards them.  Pelosi has stated she prefers Kentucky Fried Chicken over Chick-fil-A.

We know that in real life Pelosi could care less about KFC or Chick-fil-A.  But our Iron-ing Lady needed to make some type of statement to her homosexual and liberal base to acknowledge her “disgust” with Cathy for his stance on tradition marriage, no matter how blatantly irrational and obviously false.  This is what liberals do, after-all.  They merely blow with the wind, in whatever direction that wind happens to be blowing on that particular day.  Pelosi thought she could use a “controversy” (which what Cathy stated is not) and make conservatives look weak and foolish, hateful and bigoted, while at the same time propping herself up as a model of endearing tolerance and acceptance.  Pelosi has merely shown herself to be the fool.

Conservatism has come a long way since the 1940’s  and 50’s when there was virtually universal agreement among conservatives that homosexuality was an absolute abomination, and that included going so far as to regulate what gays and lesbians did in the privacy of their own homes.  That type of mentality no longer exists in modern conservatism.  Most conservatives, today, while they may oppose gay marriage, and may oppose homosexuality itself, have absolutely no desire to regulate or control or punish the act of homosexuality.  Certainly not to the extent of our parents and grandparents generation.  And we neither are interested in regulating what gays and lesbians do in the privacy of their own homes any more than we desire to regulate what they do in public – within the realm of reasonable and polite conduct, which also goes for heterosexuals.

While tolerance for homosexuality has dramatically increased within conservative circles, that doesn’t mean we regard homosexuality as either a civil or Constitutional right.  And we certainly do not support judges making up laws based on their own personal opinions.  We, conservatives, (most conservatives at any rate) are not interested in punishing someone for being gay or lesbian.  We certainly do not want laws on the books that ban homosexuals from participating in, and alongside of, society.  Nor do we desire to push them out of society.  In fact, most conservatives today openly welcome gays and lesbians into society, as we do with anyone who acts in a responsible, dignified and proper manner in public.

Most homosexuals who are liberal (for we know there are many conservative gays and lesbians as well) are hell-bent on pushing themselves and their marriage equality agenda on our entire nation, with total and absolute disregard for what the will of the people want.  That is sheer arrogance and a recipe for a devastating set-back for homosexuals in America.  And as America moves back to its conservative roots, while it accepts homosexuality to a greater degree than in decades past, if gays and lesbians agitate and aggravate conservatives too much, that support will begin to diminish and homosexuals will be back to pre-Stonewall times.  This ought to frustrate the hell out of conservative gays and lesbians who know the games that liberals are playing with them, at their expensive.  And conservative gays and lesbians ought to know that liberals who play these games with their sexual orientation only do so because they feel it will score them political points, not because they, like our Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, really cares about you or whether your rights, and your entire lifestyle, are being trampled on by a restaurant owner.

If gay marriage is ever going to come to fruition in America, it can only do so when a majority of American people favor such a redefining of marriage, and show that support in the voting booths.  Gay marriage, indeed, homosexuality itself, will make no inroads so long as it continues to force itself on the America people and make absurd and improper demands on us such as to either accept them or be labeled and branded as bigots and homophobes.

We, conservatives, are much stronger, and more resolved, than weak-minded buffoons like our Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi.  Not only is she playing chicken with homosexuality, she is chicken.  So are all liberals who have come out in opposition to Cathy and his American right to have and to voice his opinion.  Freedom of speech is not only for liberals.  But every time a conservative speaks up on behalf of an issue liberals reject, said liberals try to silence conservatives.  Cathy said nothing improper, nothing bigoted, nothing hateful.

Pelosi, on the other hand, is far more hateful, far more bigoted, and far more a hypocrite for her pathetic response to Cathy than is Cathy towards gays and lesbians.  Why?  Cathy is sincere in his stance against gay marriage, which has nothing to do with homosexuality in of itself.  How sincere is Pelosi, really, towards homosexuality, or any issue that she supports, which she only supports because she has been told by strategists such support will equate into more votes for her?  Try as Pelosi might, this Iron-ing Lady cannot smooth out the wrinkles of her convoluted absurdity.

In fact, the fabric of liberalism, on which these wrinkles reside, have so distorted, and so faded, the original facade of this outfit that at this point it is best to just throw it out and buy something new.  (Some might consider this to be an insult against Pelosi herself.  It is more of an insult against liberalism, than any one liberal.  But, and although Pelosi is old and is showing her age, and as a politician is indeed worn, faded and wrinkled, it could also be taken to mean it is time to replace Pelosi with a fresh face in congress that is not so set, as stone, in their ways.)

It’s up to all gays and lesbians to decide how far they want to take the issue of gay marriage, and in which direction they wish to take it.  America is in fact becoming more conservative, little by little.  Either they can reject liberals like Pelosi, who only pander to them, and embrace conservative who, although may not support gay marriage, certainly do not support outlawing and punishing homosexuality or homosexual behavior – and would accept, in principle, homosexual marriage if that is what a majority of Americans also supported.  Or – gays and lesbians can fall and collapse back into themselves and lose everything they have fought so hard to attain for so many decades.  It is all a matter of priority, and what is most important to gays and lesbians.  Fighting a losing battle, or accepting that gay marriage is not realistic right now, but may be, and would have a better chance of being real, in the future if they were more patient.

Nancy Pelosi, the Iron-ing Lady, is willing to push back the gains made by gays and lesbians for her own personal agenda.  How is that working for homosexuals, and improving upon the homosexual cause, in America?

Gay Marriage And Why The Majority Rules, Not The Tyranny Of The Minority

Where the United States Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority, the rights of minority are not infringed upon.  However, the Constitution is not vocal on every single “rights” issue the minority so passionately protests be inducted into the Constitution.  And where those “rights” do not exist anywhere in the Constitution, the minority seeks aid from Leftists and liberal activist judges to “reinterpret” (bend and skew) those Constitutional rights to include language that was never intended so that those “rights”, although they do not exist in the Constitution, become protected.  And while they are not protected explicitly by the Constitution, they are protected by those same liberal activist judges and courts, until they can be successfully removed, effectively blocking the right of the majority to overturn those laws.  In essence – it is the tyranny of the minority which is oppressing and suppressing the rights of the majority.  That is un-Constitutional.

How can you accept something, anything, as a “right” that does not yet exist?  Further, how can you protect that which does not yet exist?  The minority wants gay marriage, which does not exist as a right in the Constitution, (and therefore cannot be Constitutionally accepted and protected) to be Constitutionally accepted and protected nonetheless.  It is in that act of liberal blindness, and throwing lawsuit after lawsuit at every court in America, hoping enough lawsuits will “stick” (and that has been the case, especially with liberal courts) so that enough legal protection and cover for whatever “rights”, gay marriage notwithstanding, the minority advocates for becomes legally protected without ever having to actually be Constitutionally protected or pass Constitutional muster first.

The Left, invoking stare decisis, and the passage of time, and pointing to decided and established law as justification enough to keep such laws intact, becomes irritated and frustrated when those laws are challenged on their Constitutionality.  They further become heated when courts begin to dismantle those coveted laws, finding those laws, rightly, to actually be un-Constitutional.  When the minority is in the majority, in specific pockets of America (San Fransisco, for example) and they, as a majority in those specific locales, pass laws as a majority in their communities, those laws, by virtue of having been passed by a majority (although they represent a minority in the rest of America) become law.  That is Constitutional, and conservatives, although we may not necessarily agree with those laws passed, respect and uphold the right of the majority when they do pass such laws.  Why (and this is rhetorical for obvious reasons) doesn’t the minority have that same respect for the majority when the majority passes laws they, the minority may not necessarily agree with?

The Constitution protects the majority and the right of the majority to pass laws the minority may not approve of, or feel suppresses them.  Remember – the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority in many instances, but not every single “right” is Constitutionally protected.  In other words – if gays and advocates for gay marriage want gay marriage to be Constitutionally protected it will first take a majority in the House and Senate to support and pass a new gay marriage amendment and then send that amendment to the states for ratification, in which it will also take a majority of states to make that gay marriage amendment law.

Since there is not a majority in the House and Senate that support gay marriage, let alone a gay marriage amendment; and since there is not a majority of states that support gay marriage, let alone a gay marriage amendment, there is little hope of gay marriage actually becoming Constitutional law any time soon.  This does not stop gay rights advocates from trying to work around the Constitution by using activist judges and courts, in what can only be considered and construed to be acts of tyranny against the majority, to push through their gay rights agenda.

Every one of these attempts is un-Constitutional, and for all their “progress” when more conservative judges who are strict Constitutionalists begin replacing liberal activist judges, those laws will begin to fall, much to the chagrin to liberals.  And that “progress” will push them back.  Liberals, who deal strictly through emotions and emotionally based arguments (as opposed to fact based arguments) will never understand this.  Nor will liberals ever understand their use of hypocrisy and double standards, while it may assuage them, while it may comfort them, does nothing but show how shallow they are, and are willing to be.

In other words – what will happen when a majority of citizens in a state votes to legalize gay marriage in that state and the minority, those that still oppose legal recognition of gay marriage in that state, demand their “minority rights” supersede the majority’s rights and gay marriage be null and void on that basis?  Will the majority then recognize the “rights” of the minority?

Homosexuals Attacked By Bigoted Arianna Nation (HuffPost); Uses Lesbian Hilary Rosen To Attack Conservatives

The Arianna Nation is brushing off the Hilary Rosen “war on women” remarks as nothing, while at the same time accusing conservatives of attacking Rosen because she is a lesbian.  Which is it?  The Arianna Nation is trying to have it both ways, saying that Rosen’s remarks were not worth the time everyone has invested talking about it.  But because Rosen is a lesbian, the Arianna Nation has found something it could latch onto it could not – it would not – have if Rosen was not a lesbian.  In other words, the Arianna Nation is using Rosen, and her being  a lesbian, as a weapon to attack conservatives.  How does that make gays and lesbians feel?

Barely anywhere is anyone talking about Rosen’s homosexuality, so why invoke it?  Conservatives are outraged that Rosen has insulted both Ann Romney and all women who make the decision to stay at home and raise a family.  We could care less that Rosen is a lesbian.  This is how the Arianna Nation really feels about homosexuals – using them, degrading them, putting them in the middle of the so-called “war on women”.  Gays and lesbians are being used as props in the Arianna Nation’s war on conservatives and Republicans.  It is the Arianna Nation which is willing throw gays and lesbians under the bus to further their own liberal agenda, and somehow gays and lesbians are supposed to feel proud of supporting this online publication?

The Southern Poverty Law Center – A Hate Organization That Needs To Be Abolished

UPDATEMORE REASON TO ABOLISH THE SPLC 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has come out and condemned Louden County Supervisor, Eugene Delgaudio, and his group, Public Advocate of the United States, as a “hate” group and is demanding Delgaudio resign.  Why?  Because he, and his group, opposes homosexuality and gay marriage, but “supports school prayer, anti-abortion legislation” and yikes! – the Boy Scouts.  Is it any wonder this group is on the Law Center’s radar?

Today we learned that the nationally recognized Southern Poverty Law Center has designated Public Advocate of the United States, a right-wing advocacy group run by Loudoun Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio, as a Hate Group for its staunch anti-gay advocacy and activities. In the wake of this news, the Loudoun County Democratic Committee is calling for Mr. Delgaudio to resign from the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors.

LCDC Chairman Evan Macbeth issued the following statement:

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has validated what we have known for a long time: Public Advocate of the United States is, in fact, a group dedicated to hatred and bigotry. The time has come for Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio to resign immediately as Sterling District Supervisor.

Loudoun County is no place for hatred and bigotry. The people of Loudoun deserve much better from their elected leaders than Eugene Delgaudio. I look forward to Eugene’s colleagues and the Loudoun County Republican Committee leadership joining me in also calling for his resignation in light of this development. I am certain they understand the implications of the leader of a hate group continuing to serve as a Loudoun County Supervisor.”

The LCDC has created an internet petition calling for Supervisor Delgaudio’s resignation, and encourages all Loudouners to stand up to hate and bigotry by signing. The petition can be found on the Change.Org website.

Nowhere on Delgaudio’s website is there a call to harm or kill homosexuals.  That someone opposes homosexuality does not mean they hate homosexuals, or would promote or support harm coming to gays and lesbians.  And even if there is blatant bigotry, that in itself is not reason enough to label a group of people as a hate group.  But if it is, there are any number of left-wing, liberal groups that, because of their anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-religious nature ought to be included as hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law center is engaging in deceptive and dishonest tactics calling for Delgaudio to be fired from his position.  It is, in fact, them, not Delgaudio, that ought to be thoroughly examined for its own use of hatred and bigotry.  And since the Southern Poverty Law Center, in its own hatred and bigotry, opposes Christians and Christianity, opposes traditional marriage, supports killing unborn children, hates and opposes Conservatives and Republicans, and supports laws to restrict the free exercise of expression and of speech (when it pertain to Christians) we must call for, and demand, the Southern Poverty Law Center to be designated an extreme left-wing hate group, and we must call, and demand, for this organization to be abolished immediately.

How soon will that happen?

Opposing Gay Marriage Not Bigotry – Forcing It On Americans Is!

The Arianna Nation, besides its “Youth Movement”, also indoctrinates its readers through false religion and spirituality.  So called “Rev.” Susan Russell decried New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s veto of gay marriage, calling it an act of “bigotry” and “déjà vu all over again”, with regards to California’s Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the two that someone as inept, and as liberal, as the “Rev.” Russell has overlooked in taking her arrogant, condescending and un-American position that such a dramatic and historic change in the definition of marriage ought to be decided by legislatures and courts, rather than through the people directly.  The New Jersey legislature did not want, and would not allow, the people to vote directly on whether gays and lesbians would be given the right to marry.  Why would the New Jersey legislature be so timid?  What if the people had voted, by a majority, to support, and make legal, gay marriage?  However they would have voted, they were denied that opportunity.  Isn’t that a form a tyranny?

Look at California, and Prop 8, and their decision to reject gay marriage and keep intact the definition of marriage as being between one man/one woman.  The “Rev.” Russell is the bigot.  She is the one who denounces the will of the people to decide marriage – if and only if that decision results in an unfavorable (to her) vote.  And although proposition 8 was decided by the people directly, “Rev.” Russell would support a court overturning the will of the people.

Now, what if the people of California had voted to allow gay marriage, but a court later overturned that decision?  Wouldn’t she condemn the court for interfering with the will of the people?  Of course she would.  As all hypocrites – and “Rev.” Russell is one of those too – she only wants decisions to be made which she supports.  That is why she comes down hard on Gov. Christie for vetoing the gay marriage initiative at the same time she comes down hard on the people of California for vetoing Prop 8.

In “Rev.” Russell’s perverted outlook, she not only wants it both ways, but any way which results in her position being favored over someone else’s, including the will of the people.  That is bigotry!  When a court does overturn Prop 8 (it’s inevitable) “Rev.” Russell will rejoice and proclaim that an injustice has been corrected.  And yet, if there is a lawsuit against New Jersey to compel the state to recognize gay marriage, and a court finds in favor of the lawsuit – she will rejoice in that as well.  The same can be said if/when the people of New Jersey vote to allow gay marriage in their state.

On the other hand, “Rev.” Russell will be infuriated and flabbergasted if the people (although she supports them exercising their right to vote as long as that is a vote she supports) vote to keep the definition of marriage between one man/women in New Jersey.  “Rev.” Russell is convinced that gay marriage is already a constitutionally protected right (which it is not).

Says “Rev.” Russell:

“And as we continue on the journey toward equality here in California, we count not just the cost of the damage done to gay and lesbian families and those who love them, but the cost of years of litigation to defend what shouldn’t need defending: the equal protection guaranteed all Americans.”

Where in the Constitution is gay marriage an “equal protection”?  The founding fathers never even conceived of the idea that at some point in our country’s history men would want to marry men, and women would want to marry women.  And if they had, they never put anything in the Constitution, not even in a secret code to be deciphered by a more “liberated” generation.

If gays want to marry, this is one of those historic and sweeping decisions that must be made by the people directly.  And when the people, as a majority, are ready for gay marriage, they will vote, as a majority, to include gay marriage as part of the over-all definition of marriage.  Conservatives may not necessarily approve of it, but we at least support the will of the people to have a direct voice in deciding such important matters, rather than left-wing judicial courts and seedy legislatures and politicians who aren’t acting in our best interest.

That is why we support Prop 8, and why we, as conservatives would support a proposition on the New Jersey ballot which allows the people of that state to vote on gay marriage for themselves.  The so-called “Rev” Russell, and all liberals, oppose the will of the majority, especially, and only, when that majority goes against their own ideas and positions.  That makes her the real bigot, and the real hypocrite.

And what makes America great is when people have the power to vote on matters of great interest and importance, even when we don’t necessarily agree with those decisions.  People like “Rev.” Russell will never accept that because people like “Rev.” Russell don’t really have any love for America and the values which have made America the greatest, and most coveted, nation in human history.   “Rev.” Russell is willing to throw all that greatness away by demanding a minority, be it of people in a legislature or people in a court, decide a matter, any matter, which will then be handed down upon all the people, even if the majority opposes it.

America cannot support itself on the weight of the minority.  Right now, support for gay marriage is still in the minority.  Gays and lesbians ought to accept that and move on with other matters.  If they keep pressing it they will inevitably awaken an otherwise apathetic mood towards gays and lesbians among those conservatives who aren’t especially that religiously committed and whom don’t necessarily follow social issues as much as they do political issues.  What conservatives do follow is rule of law and constitutional law.  When we see that law weakened and abridged through corruption, we take action.

If gay marriage is to become accepted, and supported by the majority, it never will through the bigoted and tyrannical actions of the “Rev,” Susan Russell, liberal state legislatures and liberal courts who use their influence not to benefit the majority but to appease a small minority.  It must be done through the will of the people – the majority of the people.

The American people deserve better.  America deserves better.  And the “Rev.” Susan Russell ought to know better.

Discrimination Is Both American And Constitutional (And We Ought To Appreciate It)

So a woman walks into a local bakery, turns to the owner and casually says, “Can you bake a cake for my wedding?  Oh by the way, it’s a lesbian wedding.  I’m gay.”  The owner takes a deep breath and she replies, “I’m sorry, I can’t make that kind of cake.  I’m Christian.”

This is not a joke.  There is no punchline and nobody is laughing.  Not the lesbian couple who wanted the cake made, nor the owner of the Des Moines, Iowa bakery who declined to make the cake and is now threatened with a possible lawsuit.

The two lesbians, Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers claim they were shocked when owner, Victoria Childress, told them she could not, in good faith, and because of her Christian faith, prepare such a wedding cake as was being asked of her.  Said Childress:

I didn’t do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner.  It is my right, and it’s not to discriminate against them.  It’s not so much to do with them, as it’s to do with me, and my walk with God and what I will answer (to) him for.”

What is most troubling about this is not what you might expect.  It isn’t the fact that a lesbian couple was denied service by a Christian business owner.  Nor is it the fact that this lesbian couple would contemplate filing a lawsuit for discrimination.  That is to be expected, in this day and age in our country.  What is most troubling about this is if this lesbian couple does file a lawsuit, it is tremendously probable, virtually 100% likely, they will win.  In other words, a win for this lesbian couple would compel and force, by law, every single business owner – at least in Iowa (for the time being) – to check their own personal beliefs and convictions at the door of their own business.  This is extremely unsettling.  It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.

Business owners in America have, and must retain, a right to discriminate, to refuse service to whomever they choose.  Whether we agree with that premise or not, as private business owners, it must be their right to make whatever moral decisions for their business as they see fit, rather than the right of government to make legal decisions in substitution of those moral and private decisions.  And whatever decisions a private business owner ultimately makes will, and ought to reflect, and to take into consideration, the community around them.  In other words, how will the community – the people they would hope to do business with, and make a profit from, react?  If the community itself rejects a business owner’s moral decision to not do business with a lesbian couple because that business owner opposes homosexuality on religious grounds, then let the community be the deciding factor, not government, not the law – and not by adding another dubious law to the books.

The lesbian couple added a statement to a lesbian web site stating:

Awareness of equality was our only goal in bringing this to light, it is not about cake or someone’s right to refuse service to a customer.”

“Equality”.  Sounds grand, doesn’t it?  But in that quest for “equality” someone always loses, don’t they?  In other words, the lesbian couple, in their pursuit of “equality” might win.  Should this happen, the business owner, Victoria Childress loses, doesn’t she?  And what does she lose?  She loses her right as a private business owner to make her own decisions about her own business.

Put aside, for a moment, America’s long history of discrimination against blacks, Jews, the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians, the Japanese and just about every group and class of people that ever existed.  This is a separate issue.  This is a case of whether or not a private business owner has the right to refuse business to someone, anyone, for any reason, in their own business.  And it is a case of just how much (more) power we are willing to grant government, and how much (more) freedom we the people are willing to relinquish in our endless endeavor for “equality”.  But as we ought to know, by now, the more we push for “equality” the more we push, and squeeze out, personal freedom.

It has never been the role of government to interfere with private business or with whom private business conducts its business.  One hundred years of segregation against blacks changed that.  The government stepped in and ended Jim Crow and segregation.  In doing so, our government unwittingly, perhaps, opened up a legal Pandora’s box.  It paved the way for legally forcing an end to any type of discrimination, both in the public square and private, thus forcing private businesses owners, upon penalty of a hefty fine, losing their business license and their right to own and operate a business to acquiesce to their clientele, whomever that clientele might be.

So – a woman walks into a local bakery, turns to the owner and casually says, “Can you bake a cake for my wedding?  Oh by the way, it’s a lesbian wedding.  I’m gay.”  The owner takes a deep breath and she replies, “I’m sorry, I can’t make that kind of cake.  I’m Christian.”

Was this an innocent encounter, or was there something more going on?  In other words, why did these lesbians go into this particular bakery?  Did they know ahead of time the owner was a Christian who would ultimately turn their request down because of her religious convictions?  Was this a set up?  And why can’t these lesbians simply accept the fact that this particular business owner is a Christian and go find another bakery to make their cake?  If these lesbians want to be accepted for who they are, why can’t they accept this Christian business owner for who she is?

Whatever this was, an innocent mistake or a devious trap, it has become something deeper and more provocative.  With a potential lawsuit, win or lose, either scenario will be challenged, ultimately winding up in the Supreme court; nine justices who will have to decide whether or not all business owners in America have the right to choose to do business with whom they want, and decline to do business with those they don’t.  The Supreme court will have to decide if in the name of “equality”, in our plight to end discrimination everywhere in America it exists, it is right, it is legal, it is Constitutional to hold business owners as “unequal” and thus lawful to discriminate against them.  All in the name of “equality”.

Is that the kind of  “equality” we ought to accept and to appreciate?

Why HIV-AIDS Is Neither A Pandemic Nor A Serious Threat To Anyone (Except the Ignorant And Arrogant)

Pandemic – from Greek and meaning “all people”. (pan – “all”, demic/demos – “people”)

A story about the “origins” of AIDS from HuffPost/AOL, and interestingly in its “Gay Voices” section looks at a new book which claims to have traced the virus back to an African hunter (more than likely not gay) circa 1921.  Why HuffPost chose to incorporate what is essentially a non-gay story into its “Gay Voices” section is telling, and clearly shows that even Arianna Huffington herself sees AIDS as either a “gay disease” or most likely to strike gays than any other group.  Otherwise, why put it in her “Gay Voices” section?

That tens of millions of people have acquired HIV-AIDS, and millions have perished from it, while being tragic, does not constitute a pandemic, unless we are willing to cheapen what the definition of a real pandemic is.  For something to be a pandemic, it must include at least these following requirements:

1.  Spread quickly

2.  Infect anyone and everyone, indiscriminately, it comes in contact with

3.  Kill its victim quickly

4.  Kill en masse (many millions in a short time) Or -

5. Not have any known, immediate, cure so that it kills millions over a longer period of time.

So why does AIDS fail the test of being a true pandemic when it certainly meets all these requirements?  Remember what Pandemic actually means – “all people”.  And while “all people”, that is, anyone, can be infected with HIV-AIDS, it only strikes certain, select people.  In other words – AIDS both discriminates and can be blocked.  A true pandemic neither discriminates nor can it be blocked.

Unlike other pandemics, AIDS, and the way in which AIDS is spread is virtually and nearly absolutely impossible to acquire, (and this has held true from the very beginnings of the virus) except and unless one is a drug user and shares a tainted needle with someone who does have the virus, or engages in unsafe and/or unprotected sex whether they are gay or straight and where each others blood interacts.  One cannot get AIDS simply by being in close contact with someone who has the virus.

Talking, shaking hands, holding hands for a long period of time,  mouth to mouth kissing, coughing, sneezing, sharing a toilet with someone who has AIDS will not infect you with the virus.  Using drugs and engaging in unsafe, unprotected sex can infect you, which is how the vast majority of people who have HIV-AIDS acquired it in the first place.  Being stupid, ignorant and arrogant, and intentionally untruthful, is what has caused this virus to spread to as many people as it has since we, the general public, first learned of it in the early 1980’s.

With nearly 7 billion people on the planet, those who have HIV-AIDS, both known and unknown cases, constitutes roughly only 1% of the entire population (and probably less).  Even at 2%, which is being generous and over cautionary, it still does not make AIDS a pandemic.  So why call it a pandemic at all, especially considering it only really affects drug users and people engaging in unsafe/unprotected sex?

Political, obviously.  And political correctness as well.

AIDS was genuinely, though mistakenly, thought to be a “gay” disease 30 years ago.  Many religious leaders seized upon what they hoped was a golden opportunity to further condemn homosexuality as a sin, from one pulpit to another across America, denouncing it and using AIDS as some sort of punishment from God.  Indeed AIDS decimated the gay community, particularly out on the Western coast of America.  However, it was the drug use and unprotected sex they were engaging in, not the fact that they were gay.  To this day, a few religious leaders still pronounce AIDS a “punishment from God”, and it is one of the many reasons why there yet remains a strong rift within the religious community; why many have abandoned religion or found alternatives to fill the void their former church left; why the liberal media and Hollywood continues to sneers religion.

It was not until a young, non gay boy, Ryan White, contracted AIDS that suddenly the virus was thrown into a new light.  Ryan was infected through a blood treatment where a needle containing the virus was mistakenly reused rather than discarded.  Since then, a concerted effort has been made to ensure all used needles are quickly discarded and not accidentally reused.  Which has made the spread of AIDS through blood transfusions, at least in American hospitals, virtually impossible.

Also, AIDS affects more blacks than whites, (even though race is not a factor for acquiring AIDS) especially in Sub-Sahara Africa where blacks are the majority, and where the virus is still spreading.  Another long held myth is that blacks (and perhaps even gays) were intentionally given the virus by whites to decrease their overall population.  Whereas the real reason why AIDS persists in Sub-Sahara Africa is due to a lack of education.

Billions and billions of dollars have been spent to combat AIDS in Africa with little effect.  The reason?  Very little of that money is actually going into educating Africans about how AIDS is spread.  Either that, or the African people are just as ignorant and arrogant as Americans and Europeans, and everyone else in the world who supports drug use and unsafe/unprotected sex outside of marriage.

If they were being taught not to use tainted needles, that by abstaining from drugs entirely and abstaining from sex until they are married would dramatically decrease and slow the spread of AIDS, that antiquated religious beliefs about people with AIDS having sex with young girls and other such nonsense will not eliminate AIDS from their bodies, why then does AIDS continue its deadly march?  It can’t just be tainted needles.  But if it was – how much does it cost a hospital or medical center in Africa to replace a used needle, compared to what it costs to provide drugs and healthcare to one person who is infected with HIV-AIDS?

As more drugs have been, and are being, developed to prolong life with AIDS, and allow those with AIDS to remain healthy longer, an erroneous, misguided and arrogant attitude among the youth, the younger generations around the world, including in Africa, has given rise to the belief that even if a cure for AIDS is not just around the corner, cheap and inexpensive drugs to make living with AIDS more bearable are.

While this is true, to an extent, providing billions of dollars to combat AIDS in America and around the world is not the best use of that money if it allows people to continue engaging in a behavior that comes with a high risk of acquiring HIV-AIDS.  In other words – why should American taxpayers have to subsidize stupid, arrogant and destructive behavior?  It’s a waste of money.  Especially when a little bit of knowledge really does go a long way.  And if someone wants to practice unsafe sex or use drugs, they, not us, ought to be held responsible for their own actions, and they ought to pay for their own healthcare.

The only exceptions to that include women and girls, and even men and boys (because it happens) who are raped by someone with AIDS, and are infected that way; babies born to mothers who have AIDS, and therefore have acquired it; people who have gone into a hospital for a blood treatment/transfusion and through no fault of their own been injected with a tainted needle.  The latter, more so in industrialized nations, has been effectively, but not absolutely100%, eliminated, meaning the risk is near zero.

Because we know how AIDS is spread, we can literally stop the spread of AIDS right now.  It’s that easy.  Because so many people remain ignorant and arrogant constitutes the reasons why AIDS will continue to spread.  However, the good news for those of us who do abstain from drugs and unsafe, unprotected sex outside of marriage, we really have nothing to worry about.  For us, cancer is a bigger and more serious threat.  Getting AIDS, becoming HIV positive is as close to impossible as it gets.  We are more likely to get a cavity in one of our teeth.

For those of you that do use drugs; that do engage in unsafe, unprotected sex outside marriage; that do snub your nose at common sense and reality; that refuse to listen to reason?

Well…

Barack Obama’s America: Small vs. Big (More Obama Lies)

In a televised address, pandering to Gay rights groups and touting his support for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Barack Obama has called Republicans visions of America “small“.  Somehow, in the mind of Barack Obama, and liberals, a  “small’ America” encompasses a world view that is anti gays in the military, and where a “big America” encompasses a world view, and a more compassionate one at that, which is anti life in the womb.

Only a liberal like Barack Obama would be more concerned with ending the practice of discrimination in the military than say ending the practice of murder in the womb.  Only a liberal like Barack Obama would conflate military discrimination with a “small America”  (i.e., a small and narrow minded point of view) while bolstering support for other issues like abortion rights in a “big America” (i.e., big and kind-hearted and open minded).  And only a liberal like Barack Obama could not see how wrong-headed he is actually being.

Liberals view a “big America” as one in which an ever expanding government exists to protect us all from ourselves, and any past, present and future mistakes we might make, as well as to “protect” the rights of everyone, regardless of how outlandish – unless you are a Christian, and unless you are still in the womb – but in reality to “protect” the vote and keep liberals and Democrats in office.

But that’s not a “big America”, that’s just big government.  And Barack Obama, as with all liberals, would have you pay tribute for that protection through steeper taxes, more regulations and more government oversight into your personal lives so that you might enjoy living in Barack Obama’s “big America”.

Obviously Obama’s “small America” speech was nothing more than liberal code for his support of big, and bigger, government.  And ironically, for all Obama’s hatred of “small America” it was after all a small group of political figureheads which coerced the military into dropping DADT.  If Obama had gone out to “big America”, the American people themselves, DADT would still be in effect because most Americans supported it.

The question, then, is – how exactly does Barack Obama define a “Republican vision of small America”?  (Keeping in mind that this is merely a code for conservative bashing)

A “small America” from a liberal Obama’s point of view is, to name a few, an America in which:

  Our borders are protected from waves of illegal aliens, arms and terrorists sneaking back and forth into our country

  Our children are protected from a liberal in-school indoctrination including a biased, untrue and unchecked, anti-American point of view

  Our culture and society is protected from an out of control Judiciary system that refuses to adhere to our Constitution and insists on making up laws, throwing out others, which suits their own personal views and liberal agendas.

Conversely, a “big America”, from a liberal Obama’s point of view is, to name a few, an America in which:

  America has no borders, does not seek to repatriate (deport) those who have come to America illegally, and instead allows for a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens, (which, out of fairness, would have to include all future illegal aliens) despite the fact that this is a slap in the face to the millions of immigrants who have, and are trying to, come here through legal channels.  It’s also a slap in the face to common sense as it then becomes ridiculous for anyone who wants to come here to do so legally if, under Obama’s “big America” it becomes that much less of a hassle, and that much easier, to make the trek illegally, enter America and then claim the right of citizenship simply because they “have made it across” the border without being caught.

  Our children are taught (brainwashed) into despising America, its history and its principles, and our founding fathers because slavery was not abolished at our founding; women were not immediately given the right to vote until 1920 (and presumably not given the right to kill their child in the womb until 1973); poverty and homelessness were not wiped out, healthcare was not a “universal right”, the American Indian was uprooted from their ancestral land to make way for white Europeans, despite the fact that they never actually had a legal deed to the land, other than it had been occupied by their ancestors, to show proof of ownership; that all wealth creation in America was a direct result of the back breaking labor of both slaves and the poor, despise the fact that, slavery aside, many of the richest and wealthiest Americans made their money, rather than inherited it; that America, for all its mistakes, is inherently an evil and intolerant construct and therefore must be remolded into a nation which is continually “atoning” for its past mistakes and setting up government run program after program to better assist all those who have been “disenfranchised” throughout all of America’s history.

  Our judges are not held in check; are not held accountable for their actions; are not bound by the United States Constitution, as they are required, but rather are able to redefine and reinterpret law as they see fit – as they did in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion case where the Supreme court cited a protection in our Constitution giving women the right to kill their unborn child in the womb – a right that did not exist then, nor exists now, anywhere in the Constitution.   But a “right” that exists solely within the liberal agenda.

Barack Obama’s “big America” is nothing more than one big lie.  And within that big lie are more Barack Obama lies, one lie after another.  Which makes Barack Obama himself one “big” liar.  And one in which will turn out to be a big mistake for Obama, and all liberals, in the 2012 election.  Big time!

“Homosexuality Is Wrong” Is The Newest Swear Word

Texas School Punishes Boy For Opposing Homosexuality | Fox News.

Ever since the brutal and despicable murder of Matthew Sheppard in1998, a gay college student from the University of Wyoming, there has been a push in America to ban any speech that might offend, be offensive, or might be construed as anti-gay, in the work place, in the public square and in public schools.

Young Dakota Ary learned this lesson the hardest way possible one day when he uttered that phrase at school in his German class.  His teacher happened to overhear the statement.  For Dakota’s lack of understanding and compassion toward what has essentially come to be a government protected, and coddled, class of people, he was sent to the principal’s office where justice was done upon him, much to the horror and disbelief of his mother, in the form of a one day in school suspension, plus two days of full suspension.  (That was later dropped after an attorney with Liberty Counsel intervened on Dakota’s behalf.)

Dakota is not alone.  Many other students have endured such a fate as he, and this type of over reactionary measure awaits anyone, nowadays, who would dare to have an opinion that seeks to upend the liberally controlled public school system.  Even within the work place and the public square itself – the epitome of free speech, hate crimes advocates and lawyers are closing in and narrowing the definition of free speech.

Naturally it is one thing entirely for a public school, and a teacher in that public school, to want to enforce rules and standards, and to be actively monitoring what children are saying in his/her classroom, looking out for inappropriate speech or speech that might lead to the physical injury of another person.

But let’s be realistic.  If Dakota had been learning about Christianity, say that of the 16th or 17th century, how religious dissension in that era had plunged Europe into many wars and struggles, and after hearing about all the blood shed and death of so many people, had he formed an opinion from that lecture, turned to his class mate and said, “Christianity is wrong”,  does anyone really believe that, in today’s public school, Dakota would be punished with school suspension, or punished at all, for his lack of sensitivity toward Christianity?

Check out the “Bong hits for Jesus” t-shirt controversy.  Denigrating Christianity in public schools is far more protected, far more commonplace (and more common coming from teachers themselves rather than the students) and upheld by judges as free speech, than a simple, albeit, perhaps unintentionally hurtful remark, as “I think homosexuality is wrong”.  It was a private thought Dakota made to a classmate not in any way meant to be hurtful or to promote an agenda.  Rather, it was an aside that his teacher overheard and took way out of context.

In this same article it is stated how this very teacher of Dakota’s had once put up a picture of two men kissing on his classroom wall.  Very clearly, then, it is Dakota’s teacher, not Dakota himself, who is pushing an agenda.  But if it is a pro homosexual agenda then that is protected.

We have seen the vitriol, controversy and the double standard every time a proposal is brought forth to put up the Ten Commandments in a public school.  The people who cry bigotry for what they perceive to be anti-gay rhetoric are the same people who are quick to oppose the Ten Commandments in any public school out of a manufactured fear of insensitivity to the other students who might not be Christian and therefore offended or belittled by having to walk past such a religious placard.

But this is just more of the same anti-religious runaround that has wedged itself into the public school system for the passed fifty years.

Public schools should not be places where children are made to feel ashamed of who they are, whether they are gay or Christian.  Nor should they be places where children are indoctrinated by their teachers who have ulterior agendas and motives counter to the purpose of public education and to that of their community at large.

Rather, school should be a place where children are properly instructed in facts; historical, scientific, mathematical, grammar, etc.  They should also be a place where students are free to form opinions and ideas on their own, even if they might be uncomfortable to others, including homosexuality and religion, so long as these opinions and ideas are of a constructive, not a destructive, nature.

Just as a public school would never demand a student check their homosexuality at the door before they enter, neither should they demand a student check his or her religion at the door.

Right now, in America, as is evidenced in this latest anti-religious fervor involving Dakota Ary, we have a long way yet to go in ensuring that all students have the same rights, not just a select few.  And until local communities are better able to take back their own public schools from errant school boards and rogue teachers, gain more control and secure more of a say in these institutions which their property taxes are funding, it will continue to remain an uphill battle.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Over? Don’t You Believe It!

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Goes Into Effect (VIDEO).

The U.S. Military officially ending its long standing doctrine, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on gays and lesbians in the military.  And while this is a positive step, there will still be some very uncomfortable moments for all men and women in the military, both gay and straight, and among those young men and women who want to join, but do not support the idea of training, and fighting, alongside people they know are gay.  What this will do for future enrollment is yet to be seen.

It seems altogether silly that anyone, even when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was in effect, would be so offended , so uncomfortable with living alongside side a man or woman who happened to be gay.  Granted, there are religious implications, and many people oppose homosexuality for religious reasons.  However, once you actually join the military, you are bound to the rules and regulations of the military, not you own personal opinions, religious or otherwise.

Looking back at this issue, and having formed an opinion of it early on, it is an altogether perplexing situation, specifically from both a conservative and secular point of view.  Obviously conservatives by in large are deeply religious and oppose not only homosexuality in the military, but homosexuality in of itself.  And secularists, not bound by religious doctrine or dogma, and the majority of whom are liberals and who are very suspicious of religion anyway, support, and have supported the right of gays and lesbians to openly serve in the U.S. Military even before Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell went into effect during the Clinton Administration, and have continued to fight it ever since.

However, the reason why homosexuality in the military should never have been an issue to begin with is that:

For any man or woman willing to volunteer to join an institution where they know in performing their sworn duty they could literally be killed in action fighting for their country, their constitution, and for our freedom – in the types of conditions, places, terrains, etc. one is forced to embed themselves, having to stand, sit, or even bed down next to and remain in close quarters or proximity with, someone who happens to be gay should be the least of their worries.  When bullets are flying everywhere, when comrades are being shot left and right and the smell of death permeates the air all around you, who has time to think, or care, about whether or not the soldier next to them is gay?

Perhaps the one question yet to actually be defined is – what does it mean to “serve openly”?  While many gays and lesbians in the military prior to the official ending of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were nonetheless partially open with those in their units they could trust, many others kept it to themselves for fear of being thrown out if their true sexual orientation was ever discovered.  Now, that fear has been lifted.   What are gays and lesbians going to do and, in particular, how are they going to conduct themselves?  In other words – now that they don’t have have to worry about being discharged for being homosexual, will that lead gays and lesbians to become brazen, outspoken, even militant?

The biggest concern, the only real and legitimate concern, is that now that they can serve openly will they become a distraction for their superior officers and fellow mates to the extent that it will bring down the whole unit, even the military itself?  Showering beside and bedding down next to someone you know is gay should never be an issue unless the individual attempts to make advances toward you, or forces themselves on you.  Otherwise, in the military, conditions force everyone into tight situations, especially during real combat.  Trust, then, is imperative and mandatory.

But will homosexuals in the military now, and in the future, begin to take advantage of this new policy and flaunt themselves with open conceit?  Or will they recognize they are American soldiers first, and homosexuals further down the list?  That they must conduct themselves in a manner congruous with the rules and regulations set forth by the U.S. Military?  That, gay or straight, no soldier ought to disgrace the Unites States military, or embarrass it, themselves or their fellow comrades?

And will straight soldiers, now and in the future, recognize that, although the soldier next to them may be gay, and they may be open about it, being gay in no way is detrimental to their unit?  That being gay in of itself, and having gays and lesbians in a unit, will in no way negatively affect the unit?  That it is possible to have gays in a unit, and still be fully operational and functional, and ready at a moments notice to be sent into hostile territory?

All of this remains yet to be seen, and it will be thoroughly tested.

Thankfully, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is over, although it ought to have been decided and overturned, or remained intact, by the American people, not from political pressure on the military.  And because the American people have not been the ultimate deciders on this issue, this policy, because the military acquiesced not to the American people directly but rather to internal political pressure, it’s hard to imagine we have actually heard the ultimate end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: