Christian Preacher Arrested for Saying Homosexuality is a Sin

Sounds like England is just as screwed up as we are. Good has become bad, and bad has become good. We must all be tolerant of each others beliefs, unless those beliefs are Christian.

A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.

The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God. Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life. “I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know," he said.

“My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn't apply.” Christian campaigners have expressed alarm that the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to tackle violent rioters and football hooligans, is being used to curb religious free speech. Mr McAlpine pleaded not guilty at a preliminary hearing on Friday at Wokingham magistrates court and is now awaiting a trial date.

This is Bush's Fault, Somehow

A company that donated generously to Obama and Democrats receives a huge no bid contract. The Bush Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to Halliburton a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

Remember when lefties used to be upset about this sort of things.

Assailing what he called wasteful spending, Obama told the VFW: "You've heard the stories, the indefensible no-bid contracts that cost taxpayers billions and make contractors rich."


Via Moonbattery

Born Gay? No Way

This is a sensative topic for many, so I'll preface it with this: I am not sharing my views in an attempt to insult or demean, this is simply how I feel and we are all entitled to our own beliefs.

I just don't believe people are born gay; I don't buy it. This is such a popular argument with the gay community, because if it is true, it means they can't change, therefore allowing gay marriage is the only right thing to do. Bull crap.

I have several firm reasons for my not accepting this argument. First, if people were born gay, then there would be a gene associated with homosexuality. Now since homosexuals and lesbians cannot have children together (For obvious reasons. Please take a look at an electric socket and a power cord if you need further clarification), this would mean that the gene homosexuals and lesbians carry cannot be passed onto offspring, unless they copulate with the opposite gender. Wouldn't this result in lower numbers of future homosexuals and lesbians? Clearly it hasn't, as evidenced by the ever growing size of gay pride parades.

Some proponents of gay rights and born gay theories cite research to support the idea that people are born gay. I say, BS; the innate theory of homosexuality is not founded on any scientific principles. Many scientists that have been cited by gay rights advocates have entirely dismissed the notion that homosexuality is biological, and unchangeable.

From David Clarke Pruden's article:

"Let's examine the words of just one of those often incorrectly cited as providing evidence for a 'gay gene.' Simon LeVay notes, 'It is important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.'"

David Clarke Pruden goes on to write:

"A new research study by a University of Illinois team, which has screened the entire human genome, reported that there is no one gay gene. Writing in the journal Human Genetics, lead researcher Dr. Brian Mustanski noted that environmental factors were also likely to be involved.
"Of the innate-immutable argument, Dr. Richard C. Friedman and Dr. Jennifer Downey, noted, 'At clinical conferences one often hears ... that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true ... The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology.'"

Additionally, if homosexuality is so ingrained, why are there so many cases of homosexuals leaving past lifestyles behind, and carrying on heterosexual relationships? Dr. Ellen Schecter of the Fielding Institute studied long time, self-identified lesbians, who after age 30 were now in successful relationships with men. How many times have you heard of dyed in the wool homosexuals doing complete 180s? I know I have personally heard dozens of stories.

Well what about the argument that the APA doesn't consider homosexuality to be a psychiatric issue? Well, Robert Spitzer, "the psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual, studied 200 gay men and lesbian women who had undergone re-orientation therapy concluded: 44 percent of the women and 66 percent of the men had arrived at what he called 'good heterosexual functioning' and 89 percent of the men and 95 percent of the women reported that they were bothered slightly or not at all by unwanted homosexual feelings." Furthermore, the APA and the American Medical Association have long been practiconers of PC in place of science, so I would hardly hold them as the end all standard.

Additionally, if homosexuals and lesbians are only truly attracted to their own sex, why are so many lesbians very masculine, and so many homosexuals so feminine? It is as if they want someone of their own gender, but someone that acts or even looks like the opposite gender.

I firmly believe that the majority of homosexuals and lesbians have very sincere, strong feelings of love and attraction. But that said, I believe homosexuality is unnatural and can therefore in many cases be fixed, and if not entirely eliminated, it can be brought under control and not acted upon.

I believe that many things can cause one to have homosexual desires. It must be stressed that these are simply my opinions, and not based on any particular research or study, but mere observation and logical conclusion. These causes include but are not limited to:

1. Simple perversion. One can simply be a pervert, and be attracted to the "dirty" side of homosexuality.

2. Psychiatric disorder. The attraction can be brought on by uncontrollable mental processes, like chemical imbalances, or under/over grown areas of the brain. This is as close as I get to agreeing that it can be inborn, in a sense, in that people can be born the the psychiatric disorder. This is not to say that this is the case with all, or that because of this, there is no hope for change.

3. The result of abuse. One could be abused as a child, and as a result for an unhealthy attraction or repulsion to a particular gender.

4. Confusion. Often in early development, children and teens experiment. During this time period, they may assume since they have this curiosity, they must be gay. Not the case.

5. Acceptance. A homosexual or lesbian may find that they have nothing in common with the opposite sex, or they are unable to attract the opposite sex, so they turn to their own gender, perhaps unknowingly, confusing the frustration with homosexuality.

6. Fitting in / cool factor. Gay is the new black; kids love to be cool. Enough said.

Ultimately, what someone does in private, is their own business, and I have no business in it. I make this argument as it relates to gay rights and more specifically gay marriage, which are not private, but very much public; that is where my "beef" lies.

What are your thoughts on the topic? In agreement or disagreement?

Obama Appoints Shemale

President Obama recently named Amanda Simpson to be a Senior Technical Advisor to the Commerce Department.

The kicker? Simpson is a shemale. Just look at the name, "A Man Da." Shiver. I don't buy the whole transgendered thing. I'm sorry you don't feel comfortable in the skin God gave you, but chopping off your dangley bits isn't the answer, medication and counseling is. God doesn't make mistakes, men do.

In a statement, Simpson, a member of the National Center for Transgender Equality's board of directors, said that "as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others."

Sure, hundreds of them, why not? They can have a big pride parade, and invite all their gay and cross dressing friends, it will be fabulous, fab-u-lous!

While Simpson is clearly one of the first transgender presidential appointees, Democratic officials say they're unsure if she is the very first one.

Well sure, the jury is still out on Janet Reno and Janet Napolitano.

The White House had no comment on her appointment.

A 2004 YWCA "Woman on the Move," Simpson recently served as Deputy Director in Advanced Technology Development at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Arizona.

At Raytheon, Simpson -- a former test pilot who had worked for the company for more than a generation -- transitioned from male to female and was instrumental in convincing the military contractor to add gender identity and expression to its equal employment opportunity policy.

Where does this end? Are we going to have to start hiring pedophiles, because they were born that way, and we don't want to discriminate? If you want to hire someone who has changed their sex, fine, but the hiring shouldn't be because they are that way, nor should it be a protected status. How about this, I am going to have a third arm attached to my body, and call myself a tri-armer. God accidentally gave me only two arms, and I feel that I was supposed to have three. I demand that tri-armers be a protected sector of the population, to avoid discrimination. How is this any different?

Update:

I recieved a letter from a "classical transgendered" person, indicating how they were offended by my lumping them together with transvestites, and crossdressers. In all honesty I didn't write this piece to insult people, so I replied with the following:

I can understand your being upset with my clumping together the two groups. I must plead ignorance on the subject, since I really never took the time to learn the difference, because it was honestly nothing that ever interested me. So, I apologize.

As far as classical transsexualism, I'm of the opinion, and it's simply that, opinion, that it isn't a birth defect, but a mental illness, like body integrity identity disorder.

As far as the AMA or the APA claiming that it is otherwise, I don't buy it, as I believe they have both become too PC in their "findings." Anyway, know that I hold nothing against you, or any other transsexual, we simply have differing views on the subject of protected status, etc.

They Picked the Wrong Man to Rob

I recieved this by e-mail, and have not yet found it's source to corroberate the story. This may be Mexico City, not El Paso.

Living on the border, we are all familiar with criminals coming from Mexican
gangs. In this situation three armed felons crossed the US border, and tried to
rob an off duty El Paso, Texas Police Officer dressed in civilian clothes while
he stood in front of a bank. The plan was for two of them to grab his backpack
and toss it to an accomplice on a stolen motorcycle. However, the well prepared
Police Officer shot all of them, managing to kill 2 immediately. The 3rd one was
shot in both arms and bleed to death before help arrived. Gun used: a 40 cal.

Follow Up to Walmart Electric Carts

I suppose the source of my rant is less about people using those carts, and more about lazy people, rude people, and inconsiderate people, and I chose that particular subject to vent on.

I am really bother by the way some people behave. I know I'm not the good manners police, and maybe I should mind my own business, but I find it difficult.

Does it bother anyone else that people leave their shopping cart in their parking stall? Especially when the cart return is 10 feet away? Come on, be considerate, return the stupid thing.

One thing that really bothers me are those people that merge at the very last second, cutting in front of all the responsible people waiting patiently. I understand that occasionally someone may not realize they had to get over, or didn't realize that their turn was coming up, but come on. I see this daily on the way to work. There is one lane available for entering the northbound freeway. There is no light, just a lane that merges with traffic coming from the other direction. Some days there is a long wait in that lane. When it is busy I often see people driving in the lane next to the entrance lane, and then when they reach the entrance, they turn on their blinker, and try to cut in front of everyone else. Not only is it rude for all those waiting, but the person trying to merge comes to a complete stop, thus forcing everyone in the lane to stop behind them. Argh.

At this same intersection, I see people going past the exit, then making an illegal right turn onto the freeway entrance that is supposed to be used by those coming from the other direction.

At this very same intersection, I see people who are turning left onto the freeway when the arrow turns green. Long after it turns red, people are still flooding into the intersection to turn. Often, they can't get onto the freeway fast enough, and they end up blocking traffic in the intersection.

Why are people so inconsiderate? Do we only need to be nice face to face? I think how you drive is a direct reflection of your character. To me, integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking.

Hmm, I think I got that off my chest. Any opinions on the topic of rude people?

The Seven Blunders of the World

The Seven Blunders of the World is a list that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi gave to his grandson Arun Gandhi, written on a piece of paper, on their final day together, not too long before his assassination. The seven blunders are:

Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice
Politics without principle

Gays are Going About it All Wrong

Hey gays, I mean guys, can I talk to you for a minute? Last Tuesdays loss in Maine was a tough blow. 31 states have now shot down gay marriage. Here's the thing, you are going about it all wrong.

If you want the government to stay out of your lives, so that you can live the lifestyle you want, why are you lobbying so hard for the government to interfere on the issue?

If you want to continue to gay-out with your lovers, without the government telling you no, then why are you trying to get the government to say that it is ok? If you want religious people and conservative people to accept your lifestyle, then why are you drawing battle lines, and attacking a union they hold sacred? You couldn't do anything more detrimental to your cause.

Quit the push for gay marriage, and just go on living your lives. Besides, marriage isn't all it's cracked up to be. There is all sorts of work needed to make a marriage work. Also there is lots of bickering, nagging, and such. Just stay partners, doing your deeds in private, and enjoying life. There is no need to continue to try and force everyone to accept your lifestyle, because the fact is, the majority of Americans NEVER will.

If you want to be accepted, quit making your lifestyle so public. When you constantly throw parades, kiss-ins and protests, you are bringing attention to the fact that you are gay, which has the exact opposite effect of your ultimate goal; to be accepted, undiscriminated against, and acknowledged as no different from anybody else.

The government and the people of this country aren't telling you that you can't love who you want to love, sleep with who you want to sleep with, or live with who you want to live with. The people are simply saying, leave marriage alone. Honestly, be happy with the freedoms you have, and move towards acceptance of lifestyle, not acceptance of your values superseding the majority's. You can keep pushing, but we will ALWAYS push back.

Bogus Sexual Harrasment Charges

Moonbattery.com had a nice post on sexual harrasment I'd like to share. He talks about a case of bogus sexual harassment charges:

Professor Thomas Thibeault made the mistake of pointing out — at a sexual harassment training seminar — that the school's sexual harassment policy contained no protection for the falsely accused. Two days later, in a Kafkaesque irony, Thibeault was fired by the college president for sexual harassment without notice, without knowing his accuser or the charges against him, and without a hearing.

Here's how the politically correct educrat brass responded to the professor's thought crime:

Thibeault was summoned to EGC President John Bryant Black's office. … Black told Thibeault that he "was a divisive force in the college at a time when the college needed unity" and that Thibeault must resign by 11:30 a.m. or be fired and have his "long history of sexual harassment … made public." This unsubstantiated allegation took Thibeault by surprise. Black added that Thibeault would be escorted off campus by Police Chief Drew Durden and that Black had notified the local police that he was prepared to have Thibeault arrested for trespassing if he returned to campus. At no point was Thibeault presented with the charges against him or given any chance to present a defense. Refusing to resign, Thibeault understood that he was fired.

As for his "long history of sexual harassment," it apparently consists of this:

[O]ne day after Thibeault expressed his concerns, his colleagues were pressured to produce evidence of "sexual harassment." A central item of evidence apparently was Thibeault's reading aloud of non-sexual excerpts from the book An Encyclopedia of Assholes to colleagues in a faculty break room-with the alleged element of "sexual harassment" arising simply from the book's title.

Even this much evidence is superfluous in a sexual harassment charge. Simply declaring yourself to be offended is proof that whoever you say offended you is guilty.

The point he makes from this, and I'd like to echo is, this same process is used by liberals on several fronts, most notably, and most recently, the false accusations of racism against Joe Wilson. If you dare question them, they will do their best to defame you. Politicians know this, and it scares many of them away from confronting the obvious lies, and awful legislation that is presented daily by the left. I say grow a pair, and deal with the repercussions like a man. Eventually this tactic will be exposed, and the left with be portrayed as the bad guy.

Video: ACORN Caught Again - Helping Pimp and Prostitute Avoid IRS

One day after two ACORN officials in Baltimore were fired for offering to help a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute to engage in child prostitution and a series of tax crimes, another secretly shot videotape has surfaced that shows the same couple getting similar advice from ACORN officers in Washington.



Glenn Beck on the whole situation:

Video: ACORN Caught Helping Pimp and Prostitute Lie to the IRS

Remember, this is the group that Obama said he'd call them in to help 'shape the agenda' of the next presidency of the United States.

Why Wouldn't Obamacare Take Effect Until 2013? The $64,000 Question

Have you ever though, why is Obama trying to force health care reform down our throats, and trying to get it passed as quickly as possible, if it isn't slated to take effect until 2013, the year after the next presidential election? From the National Review:

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation’s health care before the August recess — for a program that would not take effect until 2013.

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the legislation were to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone for years the date when the legislation would go into effect — specifically, until the year after the next presidential election?

If this is such an desperately needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation go into effect immediately, then why don’t we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to “hurry up and wait” on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the president is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.

Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.

Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.

I thought this reform was urgent. I thought if we didn't change things right away, we would all go broke and die. I think Thomas Sowell nailed it on the head. He wanted to get this garbage passed before we had time to think about what was in it. He also didn't want us knowing just what government run health care was going to be like, until he was reelected. Yep, typically slick willy Chicago politics, typical thuggery, deception, and dishonesty. Obama the savior? The new JFK? I think not. He's a slimy politic an in a slick suit.

Van Jones "Resigns"

Now, I don't want to take full credit for Van Jones "stepping down," I suppose a little credit should go to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and other smaller players, in exposing Van Jones as the racist Commie he is (Please note my sarcasm, I realize I did nothing). Seriously though, good riddance to bad rubbish.

Also, there is something that needs emphasizing here. How many of these crazy people have been found around Obama? How many radical, extremist, racist, socialist connections have to be discovered, before people start to realize that the company you keep says a lot about someone. If these are Obama's confidants, buddies, and advisers, couldn't we be safe in assuming that Obama shares at least some of these views?

Yes, we all have friends that don't share our own ideology. I have liberal friends, I think they are stupid liberal jerks, but I love them dearly. But, the difference is this, if I was the president of the United States of America, I wouldn't ask my liberal friends to join my cabinet. Why? Because I don't want their political advice, I think it stinks, and I don't agree with a word of it.

Another difference? My liberal friends aren't radical, they are just poor, misguided souls. They don't go around blaming Bush for 9/11, calling white people racists, they've never tried to blow up the pentagon, or said "Go- Da-- America!"

"There is an old proverb, we are all familiar with: If a man can be known by nothing else, then he may be known by his companions." [1591 H. Smith Preparative to Marriage 42]

Obama 'green jobs' adviser quits amid controversy

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's adviser Van Jones has resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements, the White House said early Sunday.

Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs" with the White House Council on Environmental Quality was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

(...)

The matter surfaced after news reports of a derogatory comment Jones made in the past about Republicans, and separately, of Jones' name appearing on a petition connected to the events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. That 2004 petition had asked for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officials had allowed the attacks to occur.

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

Jones said he has been "inundated with calls from across the political spectrum urging me to stay and fight."

More Dirt On Van Jones, Obama's 'Green Jobs' Czar

Controversial Obama Official Denies Being Part of 9/11 'Truther' Movement, Apologizes for Past Comments...

A top environmental official of the Obama administration issued a statement Thursday apologizing for past incendiary statement and denying that he ever agreed with a 2004 petition on which his name appears, a petition calling for congressional hearings and an investigation by the New York Attorney General into "evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur."

Van Jones, the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is Number 46 of the petitioners from the so-called "Truther" movement which suggests that people in the administration of President George W. Bush "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

White House stands by Van Jones...

The White House would not say whether the White House's green-jobs czar, who has been linked to Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists, continues to enjoy the confidence of the president, but an official said he is still a part of the administration.

Van Jones, the president's special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), has come under fire this week for using an obscenity to describe Republicans and for signing a petition to get Congress to investigate whether the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were an inside government job.

Spokesman: 'No one's name was put on list without them knowing it'...

Mr. Jones signed a statement for 911Truth.org in 2004 demanding an investigation into what the Bush Administration may have done that “deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

His name is listed with 99 other prominent signatories supporting such an investigation on the 911Truth.org website, including Code Pink co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodi Evans, comedienne Janeane Garofalo, Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and others. He's identified as the executive director for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights on the statement, which he founded before going to the White House. The statement is available here. Mr. Jones is number 46.

Mike Berger, a spokesman for 911Truth.org, told the Washington Times over the phone that all of the signers had been verified by their group. He said 9/11Truth.org board members “spoke with each person on the list by phone or through email to individually confirm they had added their name to that list.”

FLASHBACK: Organized protests in support of cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal...

Supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal, a death row inmate convicted for the 1981 shooting death of a Philadelphia police officer, said the protest was called after the Supreme Court on Monday rejected claims that Abu-Jamal, a former radio journalist and Black Panther, did not receive a fair trial.

``We knew there was another event going on, but the timing of the court decision is what dictated when the protest was held,'' said Van Jones, a San Francisco civil rights lawyer who helped coordinate the protest march.

Jones said about 15 protesters occupied the rotunda at the Federal Building on Clay Street in an act of civil disobedience with the hope they would be arrested.

COMPARED GEORGE W. BUSH TO 'CRACKHEAD TRYING TO LICK CRACKPIPE FOR A FIX'...

Van Jones: 'We've never seen a Columbine done by a black child'... Only 'Suburban White Kids' Shoot Up Schools...

Obama's Betrayals Can Unite Us All

For months I contemplated the idea of discovering the one common denominator that could unite all Americans regardless of our persuasions and backgrounds. It was definitely a struggle considering the vast amount of research that kept leading me back to our differences. But along the way, I did notice that our showcased divisions were simply by an unscrupulous design.

Continually and consistently pitting us against each other – ‘haves’ versus ‘have-nots’, liberals versus conservatives, and so on – is actually due to politicians who seek power over a divided people, for in division we are weak. Many leaders have systematically divided the masses in order to manipulate the transfer of power from the people to the government. When we are distracted by our differences – politically, spiritually, financially, etc. – we fail to clearly see the looming big picture that will ultimately affect us all.

Barack Obama’s portrayed beliefs assert that the citizens of this country must sacrifice for the betterment of the collective. However, he manipulates our differences in order to divide the American people into groups – divide and conquer. But there is one important detail that Obama has definitely miscalculated. He banked on the notion that the collective was made up of enough faithfully blind followers that would implement his every wish and command. Instead he has painstakingly realized that regardless of the alluring bait dangling in front of us, we are a collection of individuals capable of evaluating and deducing from our own perspectives. And throughout Obama’s tactics to divide our nation, he has betrayed many of these groups.

Obama betrayed veterans when he proposed that service-related injuries be charged to their private insurances. He betrayed police officers when he proposed a major cut in the funding to the families of slain officers and when without knowing the facts, he stated that they acted “stupidly” in the arrest of Harvard Professor Gates. He betrayed postal workers when he implied that they were inefficient and lacked the necessary skills to succeed. He betrayed the fiscally conservative when he championed a pork-filled stimulus plan and embarked on a record setting spending spree. He has betrayed the Christians when he insisted that Georgetown University conceal any symbols or writings that represented Jesus Christ. He betrayed the Jews when Israeli’s Chief of Staff received an unwelcoming reception at the White House and when he awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson. He has betrayed gays and lesbians when he promised to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act but has failed to do so. He betrayed the employees of insurance companies by reflecting them as greedy and subject to investigation. And most surprisingly, he betrayed the liberals when he flip-flopped on his insistence of a government-run option within the Health Care Reform bill.

There is no doubt that I have missed many groups, and my sincere apologies to those who have been omitted. But based upon Obama’s accumulative actions, it is now readily apparent that we actually do have something in common, despite all of our differences, in which we can unite. It must also be said that Americans are strongest when we identify ourselves as individuals first. And as such, we should stand united as the one common denominator for the collective can be summed up as follows: Sooner or later, Barack Obama will have betrayed us all. So if one’s allegiance incorrectly leads you to believe that he eventually won’t betray you as well, it is undoubtedly only a matter of time.

Nancy Pelosi Sucks

Nancy Pelosi embodies what is wrong with politics today. She is a liar, a cheat, a bully and takes absolutely zero accountability. Even with George Bush out of office, she still manages to blame him for her mistakes.

But when Bush was in office, it seemed like the only thing she did was bash Bush. On September 29, 2008, she gave a disgustingly partisan speech, during a debate of the the Wall Street crisis. In her speech, she blamed George Bush for the crisis, claiming "reckless economic policies", "fiscal irresponsibility" and an "anything goes economic policy."

A few quotes from the Nancy Pelosi speech of Septmber 29, 2008:

"[W]hen was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system."

"Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos."

"Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street. The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardise the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilisation bill."

"Today we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership … We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a new direction to a better future."

John Boehner, the Republican minority leader, said after the failed vote that "I do believe we could have got there today, had it not been for this partisan speech the Speaker gave. The Speaker had to give a partisan voice that poisoned our conference."

That speech is a prime example of her ineffectiveness as house speaker. Ms. Pelosi has no interest whatsoever in reaching common ground, for the common good. Nancy Pelosi is all about dissension, blaming, and partisan politics. She can't seem to shut that venomous, botox tightened hole she calls a mouth.

Pelosi has come to represent, and lead the modern day liberal movement, full of spite, hate, and greed. In an attempt to gain more power, to twist our fine country into the liberal utopia she envisions, and to please special interest groups, and organizations like moveon.org, Pelosi will stop at nothing.

Compassionate Obama?

From an e-mail I recieved:



I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.

I think this photo constitutes another major Obama blunder.

As some AT commentators point out, this picture becomes a metaphor for ObamaCare. The elderly are left in the back, with only the kindness of the Crowleys of the world, the stand up guys, to depend on. The government has other priorities.

One of the major subtexts of the health care debate involves the public's fear of indifferent, powerful bureaucrats ruling their lives. It is one thing to wait in line at the DMV to find out which other line you should wait in, in order to begin the process of waiting for multiple bureaucrats to go through the motions of processing your request. I have spent entire afternoons going through this process.

But when we get to health care, waiting often means enduring pain and dysfunction longer than necessary, sometimes a worsening of the condition, and sometimes death.

That's why I think this image will have genuine resonance. It captures something that older Americans in particular can relate to. The President presses ahead with a program that will tell them to take painkillers instead of getting that artificial hip.

At every stage of the entire Gates affair, Obama has provided a revealing tell. The "acted stupidly" blunder revealed that he automatically blames the police and thinks they really are stupid to begin with. It didn't trigger a single alarm bell in his mind as he figured out what to say.

Then, the non-apology apology revealed an arrogant man who cannot do what honest people do: admit it when they make a mistake.

Now at stage three, the beer photo op looked OK. It didn't turn into a disaster.

But then in a small moment that nobody in the White House had the brains to understand, Obama goes and send a body language message like this.

I think he is going to get deeper and deeper into trouble. He is no longer repeating the familiar scripts dreamed up for the campaign. He was a master performer.

But when he goes improv, as a president must do, he lets his true character show. This helps widen the level of doubt that Obama is the same guy a majority voted for. Those doubts can only grow.

Andrew McCarthy has assembled an overwhelming case that Obama has lied about who he is. I predict that more and more Americans will become open to the argument that they have been had by a sophisticated and ruthless effort to foist a phony on America.

A nice comparison of the character of the two most recent presidents. George Bush with Senator Robert Byrd:

Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right

My philosophy on homosexuality is, love the sinner, not the sin. I don't have a single thread of negativity for those that proclaim themselves to be homosexual, it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me, are the acts involved in homosexuality, and the idea being forced on us, that those acts are a human rights, morally ok, and we should all be accepting of it.

I don't believe that gays should be discriminated against, but I also don't believe that homosexual activities should be accepted by society, and no, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. It is ok to have homosexual thoughts and desires. It is acting on those desires that is wrong.

Why don't I believe that being gay is a civil right? Well, for starters, I don't believe people are born that way. In an article written by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH, Shirley E. Cox, DSW, and Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., they write the following:

What is clear, however, is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions.

Researcher Dean Hamer (1993), for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located a the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. Referring to that research, Hamer offered some conclusions regarding genetics and homosexuality.

"We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors..."(Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 82).

"Homosexuality is not purely genetic...environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay...I don't think we will ever predict who will be gay" (Mitchell, 1995).

Citing the failure of their research, Hamer & Copeland further write,

"The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants" (1994, p. 104).

What's more interesting is that when Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice et al concluded:

"It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28" (Rice et al, 1999, p.667).

Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:

"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.

"The INAH 3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior....Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later." (Nimmons, 1994, p. 64).

Indeed, in commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states:

"These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain" (Breedlove, 1997, p. 801).

Again, I don't think homosexuality is inherent. That is not to say many, and perhaps most of the gay community in all honesty believes it is, and I can understand that. But, in my opinion people are gay for a variety of reasons, whether conscious or subconscious, but it is not genetic. Something in their life sparked a change in their bodies, in their brains that made them that way.

Furthermore, I don't consider it a civil right, because I view homosexual acts as morally reprehensible. And don't tell me I don't have a right to my views on morality, while trying to force me to accept yours. I don't force heterosexuality on you, so don't force gay on me. I think it is an affront to God, and his divine institution of marriage and family, when two people of the same gender engage in homosexual acts. Plain and simple.

Beyond the moral implications of gay rights, I think it is simply unnatural, and purely indulgent to sexual appetites. Sex can be, and is a source of great pleasure. Pleasure aside, sex is also the only natural means of procreation. Biologically a man and a woman need each other to have children. Biologically men and women’s sexual organs fit together like two pieces of a puzzle. It's like a stand up comedian once said, you can't plug a lamp into another lamp, but it sure is fun when two sockets get together.

There is real biological need of copulation between a man and a woman. Biologically it makes sense for a man and a woman to marry, and mate for life; multiplying, and raising children together.

In a homosexual relationship, there is no biological function. Sex between two people of the same sex is purely physical and emotional, it fulfills no greater purpose, and leads to nothing but bonding between the two, and the release of sexual energy. Because there is no greater biological purpose, there is no need for marriage for a homosexual couple; besides perhaps insurance, and inheritance, which could be achieved through a legal contract, and wouldn’t really require marriage.

There is no need for me to accept your lifestyle, forcibly or otherwise. What does it benefit you? It's not like you have to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or sit in the back of the bus. You aren't treated like second class citizens. Stop whining, looking for everyone's approval, and forcing your lifestyle on me. If you want to be gay, go be gay, but keep it out of my life, I want no part of it.

Heaven or Hell?

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance ‘Welcome to heaven,’ says St. Peter. ‘Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.’

No problem, just let me in,’ says the man.

‘Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we’ll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.’

‘Really, I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,’ says the senator.

‘I’m sorry, but we have our rules.’

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises…

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him ‘Now it’s time to visit heaven.’

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

‘Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.’

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: ‘Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.’

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.

‘I don’t understand,’ stammers the senator. ‘Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.’

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, ‘Yesterday we were campaigning, today you voted.’

Why People are Liberal - Because It's Easy

I got to thinking the other day, why are people liberal? To a conservative their "values" seem so skewed, and so entirely unethical at times. After careful consideration, I have concluded that there are several factors that lead to a liberal ideology, including mental, moral and ethical.

First, it is easy to be liberal. If you don't want to have to think too hard about how to stand on a position, it is easy to just say, "everything is ok", "everything is equal", "there is no wrong", "all lifestyles are ok", "everyone should have everything they want", etc., etc. It is a hard thing to think logically on a topic, and come to the conclusion that some things are just plain wrong, somethings are not equal, some things are not ok, some people will have to do without for the common good, etc. Liberals call it cold hearted conservatism, conservatives call it logical, or moral.

Second, it seems cool. When you are a liberal, you have the same views as all the big Hollywood celebrities, all the major media outlets, your college professor, all the moron emo-kids at school, etc. Why not join the crowd? If you take a more controversial stand against something, i.e. Carrie Prejean, you stand the possibility of being an outcast, ostracized, harassed, etc.

Third, in many cases liberals lack religion, and in many cases they aren't religious because faith in a higher power is hard (please note this is not a blanket statement towards ALL liberals). So much of what liberals believe in takes no faith, because they rely on "scientific" backing, or discount moral implications, therefore it takes little investment of the soul, or effort. It is easy to say, being gay is great when you don't believe morals play a part, it is easy to say man came from monkeys, because you don't have to have faith in an eternal Father in Heaven, it is easy to say abortion is ok, because then you don't have to have faith that we are children of God, or that there are consequences for our actions, or that there is an afterlife where we will be held accountable for our actions.

Fourth, some liberals are narcissists, and they assume they are vastly superior in intelligence to the knuckle-dragging-conservative-slack-jawed-yokels, basing all their arguments on morals, God, the evils of capitalism, military might, etc. They believe that the liberal indoctrination their college professors spewed at them is the intelligent, more distinguished, more sophisticated view of the world. So, they go around spouting communist theory, socialist theory, relativism, agnosticism, etc.

Fifth, it is easy to let the government take care of things for you. It is easy to ask the government to provide your housing, health care, education, food, drugs, protection, moral legislation (telling you what is right/wrong), etc. It is especially easy when you have no desire to obtain or develop these things for yourself, through hard work, sacrifice, or determination. It is even easier when it is free, because you don't pay any taxes in the first place, or you don't comprehend the fact that the Government doesn't have any money, save for the money they tax from the American populous. It is little wonder people have such little care for other's property, because things gained easily are regarded lightly.

But I believe it takes an intelligent, self assured, faithful, strong person to see that there are powers outside our control. That just because we would like something to be right or moral, doesn't mean it is. That we can believe man isn't the be all, end all of existence. That sometimes people have to suffer, and it is our duty as people to take care of them, not the Government. That God didn't intend for life to be easy, that man was meant to face trials, so that he could grow in strength and character. That man has worth, and that we degrade that innate worth when we aren't accountable for ourselves, and our actions, when we don't learn to take care of ourselves, and those we are responsible for. I believe that God knows far more than any man, including the greatest political leaders of any day or age. I believe that you know what is best for you and your family, not someone a thousand miles away in a smoke filled room. I believe that this country was founded on the idea of personal liberty and freedom, a life free from tyranny, and government interference, free from a central power telling us what is moral, and forcing us to accept it.

There is use for the government, they are meant to protect us from foreign and domestic threats. They have use in creating and maintaining infrastructure vital to the health of the nation. They have use in outlawing acts or otherwise that pose threat to American citizens, like abortion. They have use in facilitating trade, and economic wealth. They have use in ways that help the Americans, but they should have no part in anything that forces undue intrusion or control into or on our lives.

I believe it is hard to be a conservative, but I wouldn't have it any other way.