The First Gay President. Hah!

"I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts." ~ John Locke

The news is out! Barack Hussein Obama is a homo! Newsweek has outed the President.

I think this is hilarious!

I wonder if Obama approves of being known as a Homosexual. Considering his tender sensibilities, he might be offended. I know I would, and I'm not easily offended.

 If I were married to Michele, I'd probably turn gay, too.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. People who have psychological disorders often manifest several at once, so, along with being a pathological narcissist, and a compulsive liar, and a megalomaniac, we can throw in homosexuality.

I always thought he walked a little funny.

Those late night meetings with Barney Frank take on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

Barack's Blunder

 "Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~Frank Dane

Barack Obama's recent announcement of support for the oxymoronic "same sex marriage", in my mind, is a blunder, if he wants to be re-elected.

No doubt he thinks he's pandering to his base with this announcement, but, the fact is, Same sex marriage legislation has been soundly defeated in every state where the matter was voted on by the voters. The only time it has been legalized was when the Constitutional voting process has been bypassed by the courts or by politicians who mistakenly believe the majority of their constituents actually want same sex marriage to be legal.

While some polls would seem to indicate the majority of Americans support same sex marriage, when the legislation comes up for a vote by the voters, it becomes clear they don't. Obama may indeed garner some support from the homosexuals and their supporters, but they are still a minority in this country, and most of them probably voted for him in the last election, anyway. Many of the independents and more Conservative Democrats who voted for him in 2008 could well drop their support for him solely because of this issue.

I don't believe his announced support of gay marriage is going to make a significant difference.

Additionally, the recent Democratic primaries would seem to indicate Obama has lost a lot of support even among the Democrats. In West Virginia's Democratic primary, an imprisoned felon in Texas took 41% of the Democratic votes away from Obama, carrying 10 counties.

 All of this is good news for Republicans, but the election is still far off. There is still plenty of time for Obama's campaign operatives to dig up dirt on Romney, and if they can't find anything serious enough to sully him, they will make something up.

But, he has definitely blundered.

A Lose/Lose Situation For Tebow

"I say that a man must be certain of his morality for the simple reason that he has to suffer for it." ~ G. K. Chesterton

A web site is offering a million dollars for proof that Tim Tebow will have pre-marital sex with someone.

 This is a lose-lose situation for the new Jets quarterback, in my opinion.

 Even if he doesn't have pre-marital relations with anyone, there will be plenty of soul-less women who will step up to claim the money, and I'm sure they will manufacture seemingly convincing evidence to support their claim.

Not only that, but women will be coming out of the woodwork looking to entrap Tebow.

 He would be an incredibly intelligent and wise man indeed to avoid the traps that will undoubtedly be set for him.

 In the unlikely event he succumbs to the new found pressure put on him and actually sleeps with someone, he loses.

If he doesn't, some gold digging woman/women will say he did, and he loses anyway. Even if some woman says he did and it is proven that he didn't, the Tebow haters will insist he did anyway, and, his reputation will be ruined.

As I said, Lose/lose.

A Departure From The Norm

"He wears his faith but as the fashion of his hat." ~ William Shakespeare

I never post blog entries about religious subjects on this blog. I have another blog devoted to matters of faith called "God's Way/My Way", which one can find, should one be interested, on my blogroll. I am no expert in apologetics and found myself way out of my league on that subject, so, I rarely, if ever post anything there.

Let me just say, on that subject, "I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that day". And that, as Mr Gump would say, is all I have to say about that.

I believe one's faith is a personal thing. By that I mean, discussing what one believes in a public forum such as a blog can be a risky thing and tends to stir up far more anger and resentment than political discourse.

There are so many widely diversified beliefs these days, that even true Christians often disagree with each other on some things. Thankfully, most of these disagreements are not things that divide us, but serve to strengthen our faith and compels us to go to the Word and divine for ourselves what God's truth is, which I believe is a good thing.

Not that I believe we shouldn't share our faith. I do. But we must be careful that we don't share the "wrong gospel".

 A man whose blog I used to frequent daily is a prime example. I used to like the man and he and I would often get into spirited discussions at both my place and his about both politics and religion. At first, it was fun! They started out as friendly disagreements but later, as he drifted farther and farther to the left, both politically and religiously, the discussions evolved into arguments which became more and more mean spirited until I could no longer bring myself to even visit his blog knowing that he would post some drivel that would absolutely infuriate me. I assume he felt the same about me, as he stopped visiting my blog altogether, too.

For some strange reason, I woke up thinking about him and his blog this morning. I don't know why. He hasn't crossed my mind in well over a year.

The last time I visited his blog, he was seriously contemplating enrolling in Seminary. In my opinion, his religious views are so far away from Biblical, I can't imagine a Seminary that would accept him as a student. There is, in my opinion, nothing Christian about his theology.

And yet, He insists he is a Christian. I can't say he isn't, but it surely seems he may have lost his way.

This is, I acknowledge, an oversimplification, but there is, I believe, but two things God demands from us as Christians:

1. Respect God, and,

2. Share God with others.

The thing that woke me from such a blissful peaceful sleep so abruptly this morning,  and motivated me to type my opinion out on today's blog, is the fact that this man would often call Jesus, "Jebus".

 Maybe I'm just being petty, but I find that disrespectful to Jesus Christ.

Now, this man would most likely defend this by saying Jesus doesn't care what you call Him as long as you worship Him and carry out His commands. Maybe he's right, but, I don't think the moniker either respects God or carries with it the message that we, as Christians, want to convey.

I think, calling Jesus ,"Jebus" would cause some non-believers to think the guy who's trying to witness to them isn't too sincere. Again, The man would defend that by saying what someone believes is his business and he doesn't have the right to impose his belief on others, so it really doesn't matter what the unbelievers think.

But then, that violates the second of God's demands, doesn't it?

How are we expected to share the Gospel if we don't bother to try to convince the unbeliever that he is following the wrong path? Telling an unbeliever "What's right for you may not be right for me and what's right for me may not be what's right for you, so go ahead and do what you want. It's none of my business", is, in my opinion, just plain foolish.

 Anyway, that's what I think. What do you think?

The Coming Race War

"The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals." ~Martin Luther King, jr.

Among all the other reasons Obama needs to be defeated in the upcoming Presidential elections, there is another that few are mentioning.

He is a racist.

No, he isn't positing himself before the American public with blatant racial epithets or announcing "open season on Whitey". He is more subtle.

It should come as no surprise to most Conservatives that he is not the uniter he pretends to be, but, I dare say there are many Conservatives who are loathe to hang the insidious label of "racist" on him.

But, look at his history.

Off hand, I can point to the infamous quote from his book, "White man's greed runs a world in need", among other equally racist quotes. That should have been the tip off to even the most stubborn skeptics.

Now there is an increasing number of black-on-white crimes being committed, with the apparent blessing of the "Uniter in Chief".

The more these crimes go unpublicized and unpunished, the stronger and bolder those who perpetrate these crimes grow.

No doubt, they also grow bolder, in large part, because the "Uniter -in-Chief" remains silent.

Now, let's examine the other side of the issue. Wherever there exist a mere hint of a possibility that a white on black crime has been perpetrated, Obama is quick to publicly speak out in condemnation of the "hate crime", even before any guilt has been determined. The Trayvon Martin case is only one of the latest proofs of his obvious racism.

Note the difference between the way he treats white-on-black crimes, as opposed to black-on-white crimes. He expresses outrage at one, and is conspicuously silent on the other.

Obama is giving tacit approval of these escalating black-on-white racist hate crimes by remaining silent and refusing to condemn them.

Just as the now famous open mic incident with the Russian president proves, if he is re-elected, he will drop all pretenses. He will become transparently racist.

It is important for American voters on both sides to recognize the inherent danger of an unrestrained Obama presidency.

He is limited to two terms. He has nothing to lose. He knows the Congress will not institute impeachment proceedings against him. If they attempt to, he has already laid the groundwork to brand any actions against him as "racism". Any criticism of him will enable him to stir up racial animosity in this country further.

Obama garnered 96% of the black vote in the last election, and, in spite of the loss of confidence many of those same voters have in him due to his reckless policies, he will still get a disproportionate percentage of the black vote. Because, as has become obvious, the overall attitude among blacks is, he is "one of them".

All he has to do is continue to keep silent about black-on-white hate crimes, and speak out against perceived white-on-black crimes.

The media is complicit, and will play the race card at the drop of a hat. The Republicans are too afraid to stand up against any charges of racism. That would hurt their chances to be re-elected.

A race war is imminent.

And, if he is re-elected, Obama will be the catalyst.

A Long Night

"Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists?" ~ Kelvin Throop III

How do you like that? One week after we move into our new house, our relative domestic tranquility is disrupted by the threat of a series of tornadoes bearing down on us.

I've been through these things before, including a massive F4 category tornado in 1991, now known as the infamous "Andover tornado".


This is the same one I saw, personally. It had weakened quite a bit by the time this video was taken.

I saw that one up close and personal from the door of my office building. I don't remember being as frightened then as I was last night. Since I grew up here in Wichita, I should be somewhat used to these events, but I found last night that I'm not.

On the other hand, my wife is a native of Virginia. She has lived in Fredericksburg Virginia her entire life, from infancy. Tornadoes are an extremely rare occurrence there. I thought she would be scared stiff.

She actually handled it better than I.

At the height of the storm, when the lights went out, she went to bed.

The tornado struck a mobile home park not more than five or six blocks from our new home, destroying, according to the latest reports, about 100 homes. I haven't left for church yet, but there is a strong possibility that I won't be able to leave the area due to downed limbs and power lines. There are reports of damage directly to the south and east of us. The tornado missed us.

As far as we know now, no one was seriously injured.

All in all, it wasn't nearly as bad as predicted. I'm going to resist the temptation to point out that the weather experts can't even accurately predict what the weather is going to do the next day. How are we supposed to put our trust in them when it comes to predicting Global Warming as far as hundreds of years into the future?

Yes, I'm tempted, but I won't say anything this time.

What a welcome home!

What Is KONY?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

I rarely, if ever, watch news on television. I prefer to be entertained by TV. My wife and I are down to one vehicle and she doesn't let me listen to talk radio when we are out driving together. Since I get the majority of my news from the "alternative media", AKA blogs, during my extended absence from the internet, I missed out on a lot of important stories and events.

One day during this time of no internet, I happened to notice a placard inside a car window that read, "KONY 2012". It had a picture of an elephant and a donkey, the symbols of the Republican and Democratic parties, on it blended together into one beast.


I had no idea what it represented, so, once I finally had access to the web, I googled the word, "KONY".

I learned that Joseph Kony is the name of a savage warlord who kidnaps children from their homes in Uganda and forces them to fight in his "army", often killing their parents in the process. Sometimes, he even forces the children to murder their own parents.

He has been doing this for over 20 years.

Some bleeding heart Liberal became aware of this atrocity and decided to try to stop the carnage, and as every good Liberal always does, he decided to mount a campaign to make everyone "aware" of the problem.

Now, with most of these causes, I don't really need a bunch of so-called philanthropic Liberals standing around with their hands outstretched begging me for money simply to make me aware of some terminal disease or health hazard or scams such as the mythical Climate change and other eminent global catastrophes.

After all, I am already well aware there is AIDS, Cancer, bullying, and weather changes, etc.

Being aware of the existence of these things, in my humble opinion, won't make them go away. And donating money to these causes does nothing but line pockets. Especially, as in the case of AIDS, when our society is still actively encouraging the very behaviors that cause AIDS in the first place.

All that said, I actually think the KONY 2012 campaign is a great idea!

Although, I think the posters and bumper stickers could be more informative.

Yes, they do make people more aware. In that regard the campaign did what it was intended to do.

It made me aware.

But, I still think the organizers need to explain their intent better. Until I Googled it, I thought some guy from NY was running for President as an independent.

OK. so now I'm aware that some madman is doing horrific things to children in Uganda.

What do I do now?

The same thing the bleeding heart Liberal that started this whole thing does. Make people aware of the problem. Ostensibly, if enough people are aware of these things that are happening, hopefully, some one with the appropriate weapons and firepower and an army will listen, and be inspired to ferret this guy out and put an end to the madness.

But then, when he's gone, I'm sure some other whacko is standing in the wings waiting to take his turn.

That's just the way it goes in the third world.

I wonder. Are the bleeding heart Liberals aware of that?

Apologia

I apologize for my recent extended absence from this site. My supply of funds interfered with my ability to keep internet service, and so, faced with the choice of blogging or eating, I chose to eat. I'm sorry.

I am typing this from my new home in Wichita, Kansas, which is my hometown. My wife and I moved here and had enough money left over from the sale of our house in Virginia to resume internet service. I hope I can keep up the payments.

Scroll down for my first official post.

Racially Motivated? Not Logical

"Do not banish reason for inequality; but let your reason serve to make the truth appear where it seems hid, and hide the false seems true." ~ William Shakespeare

The first time I heard of the Trayvon Martin case, I was at the library in Fredericksburg, Virginia, catching up on my Facebook friends' statuses.

The first literal mention of the name, "Trayvon Martin" that I ever heard came from a link posted by my Liberal College professor Doctor Nephew. He quoted from something called "Slate":

"How did we get to the place where George Zimmerman could claim that his shooting of a 17-year-old kid armed with nothing more than a bag of skittles was 'self defense?' "

Then, his take on the story followed the same apparent lack of thought: Some self-appointed neighborhood watch guy shot and killed a little black kid apparently simply because the kid was black.

Along with his report, he included a picture of little Trayvon that had been taken when he was 12.

Wow! The kid surely looks innocent in that picture!

Since I wasn't officially back on the internet at the time, I couldn't really expound on my opinion of the tragedy, but, my first thoughts were these:

This story (the way the Liberal press spins it) doesn't make sense.

A man sees a little kid who is merely walking home after buying his little brother a bag of Skittles and decides to gun the kid down with no reason. Other than his skin color.

That's all I heard, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

I try to put myself in his place. At the scene. At the time. I try to think logically about what could have motivated this man to pull out his gun and shoot an innocent kid to death.

I try to imagine that I, as a neighborhood watch captain, notice a kid walking down the street who I don't recognize. I keep an eye on him, because there have been some incidents of criminal activity in the neighborhood recently. Then, seemingly out of the blue, with no forethought, no provocation, other than the kid is black, I decide to pull my gun out and shoot the kid.

Never mind that I undoubtedly know that I will certainly be arrested and jailed for such an unprovoked attack on another human being, and be sentenced to death, or, at the very least, life without parole. Especially since, considering the politically correct climate that exists everywhere (including Florida), a white on black crime is particularly egregious.

Why would I want to risk prison and even death to rid the world of one anonymous black kid?

I wouldn't. I don't see any logic in the charge that Trayvon Martin was shot simply because he was black. There has to be a reason. There has to be more to the story.

It just doesn't make sense.

Now that a few weeks have past and we have learned much more about the circumstances surrounding this incident, we find there is more, much more, to the story.

Since those first few news stories surfaced, we have learned that the kid was acting in a suspicious manner, wandering around at night, in the rain, and, in Zimmermans own words, "looking about". If he was simply walking home with a newly purchased bag of candy in the rain, doesn't reason tells us he would want to walk rapidly and directly home to avoid getting wet as much as possible? Why wasn't he? What else could he have been doing other than simply walking home?

Combine these factors with the fact that Zimmerman was aware of recent criminal activity in the neighborhood.

George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain, called 911. Is this the actions of a man who has cold blooded, racially motivated murder on his mind?

Then, we find Mr. Zimmerman was directly confronted by the kid, and suddenly the kid punched Zimmerman in the nose and lept on top of him and proceeded to bash Zimmerman's head into the pavement. If you had a gun and you were suddenly viciously attacked, would you use it to defend yourself?

And we learn that NBC edited the tape of the 911 call to make it appear that the incident was racially motivated. We have also learned the video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station was retouched to hide his injuries, making his story about self defense look suspect.

Now, I suppose it's possible that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because he was black, but the facts don't support that theory. Nor does logic.

But, that's not the reason I felt motivated to blog on this thing.

I can't help but wonder why a man with my nephew's obvious superior intellect would leap to such an illogical conclusion without ever once doubting one word of the story first released by the national news media.

Could it be that he wants to believe the worst about people? What does this tell us about his world view? How has this particularly jaded world view evolved to the point that his entire perspective is completely illogical?

Where is the blame to be placed?

My Annual Tribute To Myself...

If I don't, nobody else will.

"My friend, I have just realized that we are both fools, but mine is the greater folly, for I am an older fool." ~ Cyrano de Bergerac

Famous people born on this day, December 5th:

Martin Van Buren, George Armstrong Custer, Walt Disney, Strom Thurmond, Little Richard, Jim Messina, Morgan Brittany, Art Monk, Frankie Muniz.






Not so famous: Me

I've been perusing Facebook this morning. I have received several "Happy Birthday" messages from my Facebook friends.

Because of Facebook, I now have more friends than I've ever had at any given time during my 60 years on this planet.

I don't even know many of them

Puts things in it's proper perspective now, doesn't it?

Not Born That Way

"The happiness of a man in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his passions." ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson

Recently, on Facebook, I asked this question: Do you think Lady Gaga was really "Born this way"?



The song the above album title cut references is referring to people who have deviant sexual behaviors, and insists they are "born that way".

As an answer to my own question, I am re-posting a blog post that I wrote back in 2006:

Those who keep insisting that homosexuals are born homosexuals (as in naturally, not created that way by environment) forget one very important thing.

Common sense.

No one can honestly say they really believe that. Not even homosexuals. They know they were abused by some one when they were children, or molested, or maybe there just wasn't a powerful enough father figure in the home. Who knows?

But they won't admit it and they won't tell you. And I suppose some have been denying the truth for so long they have begun to totally believe their own delusion. They are too busy defending their perversion instead of working on the issues that have influenced then to become that way.

It is so much easier to convince people who would rather let so-called experts tell them what to think whether it is logical or not, isn't it?

I don't hate homosexuals, nor do I fear them as some have insinuated. I hate the act of homosexuality. (It is possible.) My whole argument concerning the subject is that I categorically reject the notion that anyone has ever been born a homosexual. They choose to be that way for the reasons that I mentioned. And more. In the last couple of decades, I believe another reason for "turning gay" is that it has become fashionable.

I have had many homosexual friends, (I've mentioned this before) and I like all of them personally. But every one of them that I ever spoke with on the subject has suffered some kind of trauma in their formative years such as molestation, at the extreme end of the spectrum, to simply not having a strong enough father figure influence at the mild end.

Every one.

Just the other day, I talked to a woman who got all defensive when I mentioned my belief that environment creates queers, not nature. Why defensive? Because her son admitted to her at the age of 14 that he was gay.

She went on to explain that, instead of trying to explain to him that homosexual behavior is unacceptable, she simply accepted it. Then she explained that he didn't have a father until she married when he was 7.

Thus proving my point.

Right there in that short exchange is two textbook examples of childhood experiences creating a homosexual. A mother who does not accept the responsibilty of guiding her son in the right direction, and no father figure. In that case, I believe the two elements combined to create a homosexual tendency, which in itself, is not necessarily deviant. It is when the individual gives in to the urge to explore deviant fantasies that it becomes unnatural.

I created a post about a scientific study back on June 3, 2005. Scientists genetically altered a female fruit fly by placing a male gene in it. It did what male fruit flies do. It made sexual advances on another female fruit fly.

A similar, more recent experiment was done with mice, if I remember correctly. Then, the article I was referencing (from who else? The New York Times) drew the conclusion that homosexuality was genetic. The more recent study drew the same conclusion.

But, the research didn't prove that homosexuality was genetic at all. In fact, it proved precisely the opposite.

The fruit flies would have never behaved in that manner if they had not been artificially altered. In their natural unaltered state, they would have behaved heterosexually.

An opposite sex gene never occurs in nature. It can only happen if it is artificially altered in some way.

So, if not genetic, what then?

Environment. As I said.

I've said this before. If you want to be gay, go ahead. Whatever floats your boat.

I don't really care.

But stop trying to convince others that it wasn't a choice, and that you were born that way. You weren't, and subconsciously at least, you know it.

The only thing you are doing when you insist it's natural is encouraging more confused young people to deny the fact that they are suffering from childhood traumas instead of dealing with them and expunging those particular deviations.

Sometimes you just has to use the sense the good Lord gave you.