The Grace Card

Last night I had the opportunity to watch a pre-screening of this movie at AMC Theaters. In a word....EXCELLENT. I highly recommend this movie and encourage all to go see it. It's rated PG-13 for some violence and "thematic elements", meaning they talk about God....GASP! Since the movie is centered around the Memphis Police Department, and portrays certain elements of law enforcement work, certain scenes might be too intense for children under the age of 10. However, it is certainly a family movie and should encourage questions and discussion. Please make it a point to watch this film.

Sued if you Do, Sued if you Don't

WRTV reports that a woman who suffered serious injuries in a police chase and crash is now suing Indianapolis Metro Police.

The victim's car was hit in April 2010 on the north side as officers chased a minivan going 80 miles per hour.

Officers say three robbery suspects were in the van that crashed into 58-year-old Andrea Smith. One person in the van died and Smith says her permanent injuries cost her her job as a professor.

The lawsuit accuses the officers and police chief of negligence. Police say they followed procedures.

Here is a philosophical question for anyone willing to answer. What is more negligent on the part of police; chasing and catching armed and violent scofflaws or sitting on their hands and doing nothing?

I have empathy for the woman who was injured as a result of this car chase, however, who is more culpable; the police or the criminal? I surmise the motivation of the injured female is less than pure. The reason she is suing the police department is because the city of Indianapolis has “deep pockets,” and the worthless criminal is….well…..worthless. I wonder how much worth the criminal’s family has?

Sixty years ago innocent bystanders that were harmed as a result of police taking action against a criminal would have resulted in public outrage over the criminal’s behavior. Now, in our “jacked-up immoral” nation, the exact opposite transpires far too often. The police are blamed for all that goes awry and the criminal is merely a victim of circumstance.

I suggest a different precedent be established. When the actions of a criminal result in harm, physical or financial, to innocent bystanders, and the criminal has no money to cover the damages; the government should hold the family of the criminal responsible, and seek restitution. Again, who is more responsible for the criminal’s learned behavior, the police or the family?

Contracts and Dreams

“The American Dream is not just a dream, but it’s a contract.” Nancy Guyott, Indiana AFL-CIO President uttered those words, no pun intended, during a speech to her union peasants. She seems to have a distorted view about the “abstract American Dream.” Ms. Guyott seems to think the “American Dream” is an actual social contract between the government and the citizens.

The ONLY thing our government is ultimately required to do is protect our God given right of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Nowhere in the Constitution do our Founding Fathers make a contract with American citizens promising they will be provided unemployment assistance, education, healthcare, or a JOB! What the Founders did propose, as expressed in their writings and the Constitution, is to stay out of our affairs as much as possible. Thomas Paine said, “A government that governs least, governs best.”

However, what Ms. Guyott would have you believe is the government somehow owes her union friends a guaranteed collective bargaining right, guaranteed education, guaranteed wages, guaranteed unemployment benefits, guaranteed healthcare, guaranteed pension/retirement, and the list goes on. I would rather the government restrict its power through reductions in spending and encouraging free markets. The problem for Guyott is that free markets are an affront to the union movement because guarantees aren’t guaranteed!

I know I have been highly critical of unions in previous months, but there is a reason. Unions are as anti-American and anti-free market as any communist organization. American, Judeo-Christian principles are twisted and contorted after being run through the union assembly line. “All men are CREATED equal,” but not all men become equal in talents and abilities. Some men refuse to work, some work hard, some are poor and some become rich. Unions, along with communist dogma, demand all men be made equal in wealth and position. Ms. Guyott criticizes tax breaks for “the wealthiest 1% of Americans”, while other, less fortunate citizens go without employment. Has Guyott ever considered who employs her union members?! When was the last time anyone got a job from a poor person? The simple truth is that if the tax burden on corporations, i.e. “the wealthy,” is reduced, and wage and benefit demands are sane, corporations actually move their operations to your state and offer jobs to people.

Ms. Guyott’s concern with “right to work legislation” is that nothing is guaranteed; employees aren’t “made equal” in wealth and position. I have a revelation for the various unions protesting at the state house; NOTHING ABOUT LIFE IS GUARANTEED, except that we will all eventually die. Of course I’m sure Ms. Guyott will demand God negotiate with her and request equal benefits no matter her final place of residence. (Oh yes, and one other guarantee in life; Liberal Democrats will always hold their breath, pick up their ball, and go hide in the closet when they don’t get their way.)

If the unions can’t see the value in paying someone a wage based on their work product, talents and abilities then they are in the wrong liberty loving nation. There are plenty of other countries that would agree with union political philosophy and accept them with open arms. Ms. Guyott, be content that you have been allowed to fleece our economy for as long as you have. The gravy train has run dry.

Obama's Unintended Genius

President Obama might be a genius! While reviewing various news stories, I came across one from CNSNews.com demonstrating Obama’s desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Obama wants the federal government to lead by example so he issued an executive order requiring federal agencies make it a priority to evaluate employees’ commuting practices, and encourage working from home occasionally; among various other suggestions. The executive order was signed by President Obama on October 5^th, 2009 with little fan fare. Well, consider me a fan and an ardent supporter! I think our accidental genius leader is on to something.

If President Obama is seriously concerned about the welfare of our planet, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then I don’t think he went far enough in his executive order. President Obama must demand all federal agencies; no matter if they are controlled by the executive, legislative or judicial branch, immediately reduce their workforce by at least 50%. This reduction would unquestionably have an invaluable impact on our planet’s dire condition. Imagine all the pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions that could be reduced, especially in Washington D.C., if only the federal workers would stay home. One additional benefit of the expanded Obama executive order would be the reduction in noise pollution coming from the mouths of D.C. politicians and bureaucrats. Please feel free to read Obama’s executive order #13514, however it’s looooooong and boring. Here is an excerpt from the order:

“It is therefore the policy of the United States that Federal agencies shall increase energy efficiency; measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities; conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and stormwater management; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution;…”

For the first time in two years I can get behind an Obama proposal 100% and pray for his success. However the executive order could have been more efficient and more environmentally friendly had it been shortened to state, “By order of the President, 50% of all federal employees are hereby fired.” For the sake of our planet Mr. Obama, keep them home! And for the sake of my sanity and our nation’s future, you stay home as well.

AFL-CIO Principles Don't Include Freedom

Indiana House Bill 1028

Synopsis: Employee's right to work. Makes it a Class A misdemeanor to require an individual to: (1) become or remain a member of a labor organization; (2) pay dues, fees, or other charges to a labor organization; or (3) pay to a charity or another third party an amount that represents dues, fees, or other charges required of members of a labor organization; as a condition of employment or continuation of employment. Establishes a separate private right of action for violations or threatened violations.

Most of us seem to realize that elections have consequences; as we are just now beginning to understand the consequence of electing a black liberation theology socialist minded narcisist person as President. What is a freedom loving, God fearing conservative to do? Vote wisely, which is exactly what many Christian conservatives did this last midterm election. Many of us voted for politicians we thought reflected our political and moral principles, with the intention of those principles being implemented into law; in HOPE that they would CHANGE the direction our country was headed.

The current problem our nation and state seems to be facing is that brainless liberals and Biblically sound conservatives have two very different ways of doing things. When conservatives don’t like something, i.e. a policy or law, most rely on their mind to guide their heart and voice logical arguments in an attempt to persuade others. If that doesn’t work, they vote the decision makers out of office or run for office themselves. The spineless Leftists in our country just whine and cry like children if they don’t get their way. They call you names and label you a racist or bigot, and hold disruptive protests filled with angry, illogical and uncaring mobs; much like what is going on in Wisconsin and at our state capital.

Why all the protests? The unions don’t like Indiana House Bill 1028. Apparently this legislation is so anti-American, freedom restricting, and down right mean that an uprising is required. Read the synopsis of bill 1028, located at the top of the page, and tell me how anyone could be in opposition. The proposed bill allows a worker at a unionized place of employment not to be forced into the union, and allows an employer to hire a non-union worker at a union represented place of employment. Good heavens, this is criminal…..right?! How in the world does anyone with any intellectual honesty and moral character see this bill as restricting freedom or harming workers? It accomplishes the exact opposite.

However, what would a blog post on unions be without the expert opinion of Nancy Guyott, Indiana AFL-CIO President? Ms. Guyott piped in with her hefty opinion stating, “My main concern with right to work is that it would destroy the middle class in Indiana. It would make us a much poorer and much more desperate state.” No, Nancy, it would make the union much poorer and more desperate; thus keeping you from forcing workers into your job killing union. She has zero honesty, and won’t admit that her concern with the legislation is motivated by pure selfishness. Her job as AFL-CIO President is at risk!

Other union leaders believe House Bill 1028 will depress union wages, which will also lower the pay of other workers. Huh? I’m not sure how they make that leap in logic; however, I have a suggestion for the union leaders expressing concern over this bill. Follow your savior’s advice, President Obama, and “spread the wealth!” Didn’t Obama say something to the effect that everybody is going to have to put some “skin in the game?” We have all sacrificed much thanks to the unions’ bullying practices and now it’s time they sacrifice. We want stability in the Indiana job market and not the instability of unions. I would rather have a secure $15 an hour job, than a $25 an hour union job that is here today and gone tomorrow.

“Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.” Proverbs 16:19.

The Devil Made Me Do It

How safe is downtown Indy? There has been more violence in and around downtown in the past year and a half than in recent memory. Don’t worry though; the problem is well on its way to being corrected. Local churches and “city leaders” held a “summit” on Tuesday, Feruary 15^th to talk about violence in our city. Those involved in the “summit” said they would develop “specific strategies on keeping guns away from kids.”

Please forgive me if I sound a little cynical, but how many summits, meetings and vigils does it take to get at the root of the violence problem. The very “goal” of this summit focuses on the wrong solution. “Keep guns away from kids”? “Kids” possessing guns is not the problem, deviants with little regard for human life are the problem. I grew up around “kids” that “possessed guns” all the time, and yet I can never remember a single “kid” or adult being assaulted or murdered. I started hunting with guns at the age of twelve, as did most of my friends. So what’s the difference between me, my friends, and the deviants who disregard human life? A CORRUPT CULTURE!

I was raised to respect life, even the life of the animals I chose to harvest. I was raised by a father and mother who drilled into my head the importance of God and accountablility. Take responsibility for your actions and ask for forgiveness when needed because nobody is perfect. The fact that I could “possess” a gun anytime I wanted had nothing to do with any desire to harm someone. Our city’s problem with violence is a problem of the heart and not hardware. Guns aren’t the problem, ignorant and sinful people are.

Indianapolis doesn’t need another summit to determine what course of action is required. Anyone slightly more intelligent than the average Godless liberal, or media whore preacher, can provide the simple answer needed to explain and correct our city’s violence problem. The reason the solution is so difficult to implement is that certain cultures have allowed violence to define them. Violence has become accepted simply because nobody seems willing to JUDGE. Destructive aspects of certain culutres have gone “unchecked” and “unchallenged” for too long, and now they are interwoven into the fabric of that culture. There is no “easy” fix to undo what took years to corrupt.

Can we all agree now that political correctness, pride, and anti-Christian policies and programs have destroyed our nation’s moral foundation? It’s time to stop “summitting” and time to start “condemning.” Stop making excuses and start acknowledging facets of certain cultures have become an abomination. When the family structure crumbles, excuses abound, and tolerance reigns; so does violence, among other things.

Suggested action for the week: Next time you see a police officer, don’t thank them for keeping us safe; rather, thank them for dealing with the most ignorant people living in our city and keeping their cool.

The Pervertico Project

What happens when deviants don't get their way? Tolerance you say? Kindness? Love and acceptance for people with different views in life (including the belief that gay marriage is absurd)? Ha! Deviants only grow more aberration. Now that Indiana legislators are trying to build a better Indiana by solidifying marriage and further impeding perverted usurpation, the gaydonians are screaming like ballet slipper wearing boys with a gay uncle. Instead of letting the people of Indiana speak in 2014, the gayhoodians want to stop it (I don't blame them either. If it was my cause I would do the same thing) There will be no voice from the people of the state of Indiana, and that is that! No need to ask why, EVERYONE knows why. The following is a blog O’venom from the intolerant, hateful, and bigoted Bilerico Project; known hereafter as The Pervertico Project.

I'm sick and tired of hypocritical Hoosier legislators who think that our personal lives are any of their business. Do I intrude on who they're sleeping with? I didn't, but I'm going to start now. We need to show them that unnecessary intrusion into other people's relationships is not only unwelcome but unwarranted. We need to burn their hand so they won't touch the stove again.

Now that a marriage discrimination amendment has passed the Indiana House of Representatives, apparently it's time to put out the same call I made in 2007 that helped to kill attempts to amend the constitution until now. Last time we found out that Senator Brandt Hershman, one of the sponsors of the amendment and right-to-life darling, had forced his wife to have an abortion in 1997 before he filed for divorce one week later. I also found an anti-gay legislator who was shtupping a male hairdresser while his wife died of a long-term illness.

Consider this a call to gossip. I want to know the scoop. Tell me the stories that will embarrass those conservative bigots - Democrats and Republican - that are backing a constitutional ban on our formalized relationships. Send me gossip about who's a philanderer, a kink fiend, a drug addict, a porn addict, or had a divorce, an abortion or even a stay in rehab. Ask your friends and family for the dirt. Look it up on the internet. Sniff out a lead and send it my way.

I specifically want to learn more about the alleged blowjob one of our married legislative leaders got caught receiving from a staffer in the Statehouse parking lot. I also want to know more about the single Senator who got all of his money after a rich non-related older man died and left it all to him. Rumor has it that there's a handful of legislators who are in the closet and have been spotted visiting the Unicorn Club's strippers and the gay baths. Several southern legislators supposedly have a fondness for blow.

I’m in! The Pervertico Project actually gets this one right. I have never said gaydonians are entirely bad people. I hope they expose EVERY hypocrite they can find within the Indiana Legislative Assembly. I agree, their method is shameful and they have no interest in anything but destroying the person. But, what do you expect from such unhinged people? Hypocrisy is wrong and should be exposed so I’m glad they are doing the work for us. For this reason, I also will continue to expose the blatant hate, intolerance, bigotry, and hypocrisy of the gayhood movement.

Obviously, I will not act in the same manner as they do. I am not interested in the ruin of the person, just their perversion. No, I will give up my reality based ad hominem jabs either. Nonetheless, I will steadfastly focus on exposing the stupidity of their logic and reasoning. This includes those who throw history, precedent, and inference (sounds like legal reasoning to me) out the window because they personally have a gay friend that makes them feel giddy.

I wonder if the defenders of gay marriage also support polygamy, polyandry, and group marriage. After all, they are just people expressing their love and commitment to each other and who are we to judge and criticize how another expresses their love, right?

Congratulations to those who voted yes.

Scientists are De-Evolving

Very soon we will all have two heads!

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/02/paleontology-lucys-feet-made-for-walking/1

The USA Today published an article citing the recent discovery of fossil foot bones in Ethiopia that paleontologists described as the “middle foot bone from Australopithecus afarensis”, the species from 3.2 million years ago best known as the fossil named “Lucy”. Scientists, and I use the term loosely, were excited about the find because they claim the “middle foot bone” was shaped in a manner “suggesting” this “pre-human predecessor species had feet ready for human strides.” Therefore, these researchers concluded that this “new fourth metatarsal” foot bone, which they believe belonged to a similar species as “Lucy”, who was “flatfooted”, must be a more evolved version of “Lucy”; thus verifying evolution. Environmental geologist, Matthew Benett, lauded the find as a “great piece of work,” since “fossil foot bones are very rare.” He continued, “The work clearly shows that A. afarensis, from 1.5 million years ago, had lost many of the characteristics associated with apes and was well on the way to having a fully modern foot function.” The amazing “scientific fact” is that it only took 1.7 million years for a single foot bone to “arch”!

I’m not a paleontologist or a geologist, but fortunately I possess a small amount of common sense and logic; which cannot be said about these aforementioned Evolution Religion Zealots. The assumptions made by these scientists’ flies in the face of the very definition of science; a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. It is not possible for scientists to know all the varying types of “apes” that have gone extinct and how these varying species traversed the earth. Many of these evolution zealots recklessly force new fossil discoveries into their religious belief system of evolution without first considering more probable, dare I say, “Scientific” explanations.

At least one scientist looked at the fossil find with some logic and reason. Biological anthropologist, Robin Crompton, reasoned that it’s possible “Lucy” may have been “asymptomatically flatfooted.” In other words, maybe “Lucy’s” foot had some sort of defect, and all the other “Lucy” species of apes had the “normal feet.” In reference to the new fossil find Crompton continued, “It may well be that the individual to whom this fourth metatarsal belonged lacked a mid-tarsal break, but this argument cannot be extended from the individual to the species on the basis of a single bone.” Poor Crompton can kiss his career goodbye! How dare logic and reason be used when discussing fossils, and who dares question the bedrock fact of evolution? Consider this scientist blackballed, or should I say “excommunicated.”

Dishonest science has permeated our society, and our children are being force fed the false product as fact. I am so tired of hearing the phrase “millions of years” as though it’s established fact. How can two scientists observe the same discoveries, and yet both of them come up with entirely different conclusions? The answer is simple: One operates from a false set of assumptions, while the other is intellectually honest. I wonder what type of conclusion scientists in the distant future would reach if they discovered a fossil of one of these scientists’ brains. Certainly they would assume we all had half a brain. After years of reading evolutionist theories, I would agree with the Church of Evolution on one thing…..it’s not too big a leap of faith to believe they aren’t too far removed from monkeys. Their plan seems to be working on me.

Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly. Proverbs 13:16

The Muddy Mitch-Ditch

Although Mitch Daniels CPAC speech threw the local moderates into an orgasmic frenzy, I did not find the content of his speech impressive. Unlike some of the other speakers, Gov. Daniels showed no leadership grit whatsoever. He tried to talk tough with his Red Menace analogy, but failed to be anything more than just another republican. “Other than Daniels, few of the potential Republican candidates took risks or veered off the script during the CPAC pageant” writes Beth Reinhard. This seems to be overly generous to the Daniels propaganda. His speech may have been acceptable in terms of economic vitality; nonetheless, history will only remember it as so-so and far from risky. Let's be honest, very few question Gov. Daniels economic direction. What is in question is everything else.

On one hand I thought it was smart of him to not attempt to further explain or reinterpret his “truce” on social issues as some of his supporters have tried to do. He would have only dug himself deeper into the muddy Mitch-Ditch. However, the clear disjunction with social issues was the signal I was looking for; but not hoping for. His decision to not return to the truce was good, but I think he had an obligation to let the social conservatives know he will not turn his back on them. He failed in a very telling way. After all, it was CPAC right?

On this very issue I recently commented elsewhere ¹:

“He knew exactly what he was saying and what he meant when he said it, and in no way was it misunderstood. I don't know if his statement truly reflects his personal position or not. But, no one cares what your personal positions are when only your official public position affects constituents. Re-crafting or appending a caveat is only intended to mask his original intent and cheaply pacify people. He was shucking and jiving and got caught in his own snare. He did not gain one additional weight of support from any moderate that didn't already support him; but he did manage to offend (which admittedly isn't that difficult to do sometimes) social conservatives to the point that they are now suspicious of him. The best thing he can do is simply acknowledge it wasn't a very wise thing to say, and for his own learning, recognize the pressure that caused him to error.

We talk like government officials cannot walk and chew gum at the same time (insert any good joke). However, they can easily and simultaneously address the economy and social issues. If Andre Carson can find time to honor the 88th anniversary of the first National Negro League baseball game (I believe his first legislative action as Rep.) or with H. Res. 1758 introduced in December 2010, to “express the Nation's sincerest appreciation for the service of Muslim American veterans” (whatever that means), don't tell me they cannot tackle the economy AND social issues. Gov. Daniels so-called truce statement was his way of caving into the political and social pressures around him. It has happened to me, and it can happen to anyone at anytime.

Gov. Daniels needs to know that people will stand in the trenches with him. He has been a decent Governor and would likely make an even better president (stipulations not being provided). But if he is going to maintain the support of social conservatives, he needs to be more like himself and less like a slimy politician. If we are going to support the man Mitch, we must do so without letting him wonder too far from his own principles. The latter is easy for all of us to do.”

I will now add that Gov. Daniels needs to give people a reason to stand in the trenches with him. His economic policies can be easily duplicated by any other presidential hopeful. But, what I believe (or hope) constitutes his personal ethics cannot be as easily mimicked. His personal ethics must be translated into public policy; this is what a leader does. He will never stand out in what looks to be a crowded 2012 presidential candidate field if he remains neutral on social issues. I suggest Gov. Daniels rethink his current insider goon tribe pushing him in an unnatural, and unwinnable direction.

¹Edited for context.

An Obama Revolution

President Barack Obama called for an "orderly and genuine" transition to democracy in Egypt amid reports that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was about to step down. "What is absolutely clear is we are witnessing history unfold," Obama told students at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, Michigan. "It's a moment of transformation." "We want those young people, and we want all Egyptians to know, America will do all we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy in Egypt," he told his youthful audience.

The unparalleled ignorance of our current president’s foreign policy, with the exception of Jimmy Carter’s, is finally revealed. The first Obama assumption that the “revolt” in Egypt will progress towards a democracy is irresponsible and dangerous. The second Obama assumption that a democracy in Egypt should be the desired form of government is probably more dangerous than the first.

The “youth uprising” in Egypt shares absolutely no similarities to the American Revolution. The motivations of the Egyptian radicals, whether they are socialist or Muslim extremists, are light years apart from the Christian ideals of our Founding Fathers. Anytime the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and a bunch of socialist Muslims “come together” for a common goal, the results cannot be wholesome. I would venture to say that the “youth” involved in the Egyptian revolt could care less about the God-given unalienable rights our Founding Fathers and countrymen fought for.

Assuming a democracy would best serve the people of Egypt and our national interests is also spurious. A true “majority rule” democratic government never works; and certainly wouldn’t be in our best interest since the majority of Egyptians are anti-Semitic, anti-West, favor terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizballah, and applaud the most extreme elements of Islam. However, an Egyptian democratic government of Muslim crazies within a “stone’s throw” of Israel wouldn’t be as concerning to me, if not for the already blundered Obama foreign policy. A strong, American backed Israel could easily defend itself from an additional enemy in the Middle East. However, Obama has made known his opinion of Israel; which is at worst anti-Semitic and at best unsupportive.

So Obama can go ahead and “support” the revolting youth in Egypt and hope for a democracy, while we all watch as the fruit of Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East begins to rot and stink. What did Obama’s favorite pastor, Jeremiah Wright, say about 9-11 and America’s foreign policies? “The chickens have come home to roost!” Unfortunately for us, one of Obama’s chickens might lay a big fat radiation egg in the middle of one of our cities.

Barry Rubin, the director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, did not seem to endorse Obama’s foreign policy either. When asked a question about what kind of threat the Muslim Brotherhood network poses to Israel and the West; he answered: A huge threat: renewed warfare, overwhelming anti-Americanism, efforts to spread revolution to other moderate states, a potential alignment with Iran and Syria (though that might not happen), incredible damage to Western interests. In short, a real disaster. What shocks me is that Western media and experts seem so carried away by this movement they are only considering a best-case outcome. As I suggested, I would prefer things were otherwise but I am deeply worried and one of the things I’m worried about is that others don’t seem to be worried.

Did Obama hire Jimmy Carter as his Middle East advisor and we just haven’t heard?

Pluralism: Cultural Diversity vs. Cultural Deviancy

Masson says it's on the wrong side of history, IndyStudent mocks Micah Clark by facetiously (I think) concluding Clark would abandon his wife and children, and in concert, Advance Indiana blogger Gary Welsh provides a more in depth legal and intellectual analysis with a few great talking points; only to offer the analogy of tightening divorce laws as another subject of ridicule. What are they writing about? All three bloggers were commenting on HJR6, which is a first round proposed amendment affirming and restricting the validity of marriage between one man and one woman -an amendment to the Indiana constitution.

In this case, all three shared a common strain; they each subscribe to a form of pluralism that is lacking in substantive moral reasoning. Not that what they have to say is illogical or should be dismissed as unimportant or without merit. However, political pundits love to talk about the unintended consequences of economic policy, but when it comes to the unintended consequences of moral reasoning they're just not as astute.

Paradoxically, the conflict between traditional family values and gay marriage is not the core issue. The attempt to redefine marriage is only a consequence of the real problem. This issue of gayhood recognition is fundamentally a struggle between cultural diversity and cultural deviancy; eerily similar in nature to the declination period of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire was a cesspool of polytheistic beliefs. If there was ever a model of cultural pluralism, it was the Roman Empire. The dictatorial goodwill was generous to the base desires of man's wants. Freaks-R-Us is one moniker that comes to mind. You could engage yourself to the most self indulgent rituals, as long as it was not perceived as a threat to Roman rulers (their lifestyle). You name it: festivals, rituals, superstitious shrine activities, prayers, and social mingling all embodied the mutt character of Rome's cultural variety. It was a religious one too. You could worship Jupiter, Venus, Diana, Apollo, Vulcan or even a self manufactured god to cater to your personal taste. It was all good. Except for one small problem; those damn Christians.

Pluralism and understanding only go so far. The end of the road for tolerance is when reason is no longer capable of defending individual actions. That point of stagnation is where the true, contradictory nature of pluralism resides. You see Christianity is exclusive and intolerant toward all other claims of equal religious footing. When Christ said He was the only way and the one true God from heaven, and then provided the falsification method for the validity of His claim to be God, that sealed the deal. Therefore, all beliefs are not the same or equally valid when filtered through Christian thinking. Pluralism, however, doesn't like exclusivity; and this caused much grief within the Roman culture (as it does our own.) When you start suggesting that other beliefs are inferior, tolerance and love are quickly exchanged for sharp gutting instruments or in the case of the Roman empire- ad bestias (submission to beasts). Don't get to excited fellas. It's a form of death, not a weekend on the farm with your pervert buddies.

Historian Tacitus claims Nero persecuted Christians (and criminals in general) with all sorts of sinister methods of death. Likewise, early Christian writer Tertullian attributes the phrase "away with the Christians to the lions" to the Romans. Followers of Christ were tortured in some of the most appalling ways by the pluralistic, tolerant folks of the Roman culture. Why do you think this happened? Well, I can say with certainty it wasn't because they just wanted to blend in with the culture and happily present their "Jesus loves you" smiles to the passing crowds. It was because Christians were unrelenting in their opposition to the cultural deviancy. Sure, they prayed and tried to keep the peace the best that their conscience would allow. Nevertheless, their counteractions were seen as antagonistic and contrary to the cultural pluralism demanded by the Romans.

Remember, there wasn't much on the range of bizarre that Romans forbade. But, the idea of having another person condemn their personally and communally corrupt practices was something they refused to tolerate (such hypocrisy). The Christian opposition could not be logically refuted so, as all tolerant and diverse societies do, they just shut their rival up by other means (murder, prison, burning, animal food, etc.)

Like others, I also see this issue standing in the future, but with a different outlook. I think people will look back on this time in history with the same shock that Roman cultural deviancy has propagated throughout the centuries since. Admittedly, if depraved weirdo’s are successful in forcing a new standard of normalcy on the rest of us, it's not the end of the world. As long as even a scant moral standard remains, there will always be some good to be found. But, this I am sure of: tranquility will not be an easily identified characteristic of our culture. Such is the wander of social pluralism; it is as destined for failure as a democracy is. The only difference is who gets eaten by the lions.

I remember a late night talk show host back in 1995 made the outlandish statement "homosexuals are worse than gutter slime" to his on air caller. He followed up as proof by asking the caller "which would you rather have on you, a homo or gutter slime?" I still laugh today over that. I have since been keeping a sharp eye out for those lions.

"our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."- John Adams

John Adams knew that given the latitude, moral degenerates would inevitably destroy an entire country through their debasement. Such people are selfish, disrespectful, and intolerant to the extreme. To illustrate, "Go away you homophobe...You will not be heard", yelled a gay rights activist through a bull horn at a meager protest. Those words sum up the unintended consequences of cultural pluralism. By necessity, someone will not be heard and will have their rights diminished. When two or more groups opposed to each other are both trying to organize a community favorable to their beliefs, there is no room for pluralism. It just cannot be worked out. I am not saying coexistence isn't possible for a short time; but ultimately it will implode. Unless the groups in question agree that morality and ethics are not absolute, one or more of these groups of people will be suppressed. The question is which group and on what grounds.

I propose in this matter that suppression will come by way of criminalization. Criminals are the only group who forfeit some of their individual rights. I also note that for the better part of 3500+ years, same-sex relations have been illegal in one form or another. History is on the side of those who oppose same-sex relations and by extension same-sex marriage (an oxymoron by the way). What is in question is the correctness of that criminalization.

Contrarily, in theory, advocates in America only have the last seven years on their side. It wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v Texas that laws criminalizing (qualified) private sexual activity were ruled unconstitutional. It is also true that sodomy laws world wide are rapidly being repealed. With this being the case and on these grounds only, in contrast with at least the last 3500+ years (generally with few exceptions) the prohibition of same-sex unions called by any name is in my opinion flawed and indefensible.

Of course, I have never understood how such laws could be reasonably enforced in the first place, but I do understand the principle. Laws are made with the purpose of discouraging certain behaviors. If discouragement doesn't work, presumably the consequences are severe enough to squelch the masses while eliminating the influence of the undesirable. This concept of legal force works in both directions.

Undoubtedly, I will be (and have been) bigotedly slandered as a bigot by malicious gay rights advocates, many secular conservatives and strangely some of my own Christian conservatives. I suppose there are worse things I could be branded. So when the dust settles (decades) and pluralism fully matures, it is me and people like me who will be marked the criminals. This for doing nothing more than advocating what every single person knows to be absolutely true: men don't belong with men and women don't belong with women any more than an adult belongs sexually with a child.

Addendum. IndyDemocrat also wrote on this subject. I generally like his writings although I don't think we can even agree on what 2+2 equals. Nonetheless, he is a smart guy and most of the time reasonable. But as you skim over his take on the issue try to find the tolerance, respect and commitment to diversity that the gay rights advocates say they are all about.

I also intend to do a follow up addressing a few of the errors in thinking regarding marriage- particularly the micro vs. macro aspects. When I will do this I don’t know.

Like Lemmings Off a Cliff

Lemmings are small rodents that have been known to commit mass suicide when they migrate. “Driven by strong biological urges, some species of lemmings may migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. Lemmings can swim and may choose to cross a body of water in search of a new habitat. In such cases, many may drown in the body of water if it is so wide as to stretch their physical capability to the limit.” In some instances, lemmings have been seen running off a “cliff” or steep embankment while following the group’s leaders’ migration route.

Since the mid 1960’s blacks have increasingly supported and voted for progressive Democratic candidates in local, state and national elections. Obama received approximately 91% of the black vote. I could fully understand blacks supporting Democratic candidates for elected offices if the results showed marked improvement for those living in the communities represented by these politicians. However, the facts speak for themselves. The ten most dangerous cities in America, historically, have been controlled by progressive Democrats for decades. Take a moment and research the poverty levels, employment levels, and education levels of these same cities. The simple fact is that whatever progressives touch they destroy. Why do progressives continue to receive the support of the black community? What results speak to the “progress” of these fore mentioned cities? Either blacks are tragically hooked into a vicious cycle of “herd mentality”, or there is a rash of insanity within the community; trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

I have a radical suggestion: Try something different! Instead of supporting candidates and community leaders that promote Black Liberation Theology (“It’s not my fault”), and the progressive agenda, support leaders that promote the truths expressed in the Bible. Prosperity seems to follow when God’s wisdom in life and living are applied.

If you believe the last 60 years of progressive rule has improved the lives of the citizens in the above mentioned cities, then we need to get you some floaters; because the water you’re about to follow others into is wide and deep.

Kill Her! You'll Feel Better

When caught doing something wrong most children do one of three things; they admit to the transgression, they lie, or they admit the transgression but attempt to rationalize why they did it. Adults are no different, they are usually just better at lying and rationalizing. The selfish desire to “be right”, even if you’re wrong, can motivate people to produce ridiculous lies and excuses.

For too many years the Pro-Choice heathens have pushed an agenda of rationalizing murder, or “taking the life of an innocent person.” However you choose to define abortion there’s no way around the truth that a life ceases to exist after it’s employed. For many years Christians have warned about the destructive consequences of killing babies, and lament the consequences don’t just affect the baby, but also the woman. Counselors, Pastors, and mental health professionals have seen firsthand the emotional scars and guilt the “choice” of killing ones baby may have on a woman. Up until now, Pro-Choice heathens have been forced by their own guilty conscious to remain silent on the mental health consequences of abortion. Here’s the RATIONALIZATION they’ve been waiting for!

Associated Press-Los Angeles, Alicia Chang, reports: “Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does, one of the largest studies to compare the after-math of both decisions suggests.” Danish scientists funded by the Danish Medical Research Council and the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation published their results in the New England Journal of Medicine stating “postpartum depression to be much more of a factor than terminating a pregnancy.”

I know I’m no statistician, but the actual numbers released by the study are grossly misconstrued to favor the art of taking the life of an innocent person. The intent is so obvious I shouldn’t have to point this out. Over the past 10-15 years public opinion favoring a “woman’s right to choose” has slowly waned, as people begin to realize that abortion is an immoral CHOICE. In an attempt to offer the needed comfort to the declining supporters of abortion, a miraculous scientific study has revealed a new truth. Having a baby is more mentally and emotionally unhealthy than killing him/her. The truth seems to have always been right in front of us. Apparently we were all too intolerant to see it. I don’t think anyone with half a brain and an ounce of moral worth would believe this study; unless you’re looking for a way to make the guilty feeling go away and some comfort in knowing you made the “right choice.” It’s okay, just kill it, you’ll feel better!

Oh yes, I almost forgot. I’m sure the “research” was done with a deep desire for the truth, and no attempts were made to monkey with the results. NPR's "Morning Edition" on Tuesday examined the work of the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which has operated "quietly" as a "major funder of abortion-rights-related causes," and the implications of Berkshire Hathaway Chair Warren Buffett's plans to donate stock currently valued at about $3 billion to the Buffett Foundation (Rovner, "Morning Edition," NPR, 6/27). Buffett on Sunday in a letter disclosed that he would give the stock to the foundation, which is named after his late wife and supports reproductive health and rights, family planning and college scholarship programs. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/46074.php

Psalm 139:13 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”