Wednesday, May 06, 2015

May I Borrow Your Bully Pulpit for a Moment

There are free speech exceptions in law, long recognized, universally hailed.
You may not yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre-why? It will tend to incite a stampede where someone is likely to get hurt. You may not incite a riot. Why? It will likely incite someone getting hurt.
So should Pamela Geller be allowed to freely do something that she knows will likely incite someone getting hurt?

     There is a reason that Muslims say, please don't do that-don't defame, disgrace, desecrate or mock the image of our founder. 99.999 percent of Muslims around the world are not desecrating Jesus, Mary or Moses- the battles being fought under the false banner of Islam in Syria and Iraq and Palestine are political, land, economic battles for the most part and religion is being used as a solidarity tool.  The vast Majority of Muslims have nothing against the Virgin Mary or Jesus if they know him. They in fact give Mary a special place of reverence even in the Koran.

I am hosting a cartoon contest and party and will give the winner 10,000 for drawing the "best" (e.g. Most Mockifully outrageous) cartoon of Pam Geller. I expect a hugely exaggerated mouth, a hugely exaggerated nose with her inserting a finger picking it, a hugely large rear end (for coveting Kardashian fame) and a bug running up her butt. Horns gets a door prize also. Not Really.

Just Kidding. That would be insanely rude, mean even, possibly anti-semitic and just juvenile. Plus someone is likely to take such offense I might get a call from the Mosad.

But that is  exactly the sort of free speech this provacateuse is peddling.
It is not Charlie Hebdo political satire responding to an event-it is gratuitous insult for no purpose other than to peddle a false victimhood to stage a false flag aggression back.
It is hate peddling for hate's sake.

So Stop Already. It serves no good legitimate purpose.

Pam Geller, I have met Rosa Parks and you are no Rosa Parks (I exaggerate, I never met personally Rosa Parks but I have met people like her and Pam Geller isn't even remotely like people like her.)
To stage a quiet prayerful peaceful sit in is hardly offering someone 10 grand to taunt an entire religious group of a few billion people who did nothing against Pam Geller.

Pam Geller is Rosa Parks if Rosa Parks yelled with her dress over her head "Lets get them whitie honkie crackers" and left cracker crumbs all in the back of the bus.
Then  you would expect some white nut job  to try to shoot at her.

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Free Speech never an excuse for Poor Taste or Inciting Violence

 The below video is objectionable in that it lumps all Muslims into categories that don't fit.
There are in fact very peaceful Muslims who do not subscribe to the notion that global jihadistic imperialism is the goal or even OK. There are indeed Moderate peaceful Muslim groups and I would 
place the Gulen movement called "Hizmet" among them. 

This video infers that all Muslim orgs are running a deceptive game on non-muslims to impose Sharia and that is a gross overstatement. 

There are legitimate Muslim orgs that are about peaceful co-existence, inter-faith dialogue and building bridges not torching them down. There will be more on this later. 

I post all views here and don't subscribe to all of them. 
The view posted incites the kind of thing like the "free speech" promoting cartoon competition in Texas resulting in violence. 

Free Speech is not an excuse for poor taste or inciting violence. 
The vast majority of Muslim people do not go around chanting hostile things to non-muslims or 
engaging in deliberately nasty mocking things about Jesus, Mary or Moses. 

Look here for more about the subject in weeks ahead.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Life LIberty and the Pursuit of my ego and libido.

There is no Constitutional Right to Exploitation.

  A Same sex couple wishing to have a family have to take someone else's child or hire a womb to make one. Definitionally at least one of the parents is not going to be the biological parent. The exploitation potential inherent in that is found in the poorest countries like Nepal where destitute women serve as rent-a-wombs. There are also men who leave their wives for other men and fight for the children with two male incomes versus the income of a housewife who gave up everything to have children. It is not true that there are no victims in homosexual unions always.

   "There is a way that seems right to a man but leads to death." (google it.)

Would it be a recruiting tool for jihadi muslim extremists if all of America declared gay marriage a constitutional right? Not a silly question. Would it be such a mobilizing factor indicting the decadent west that it would be of National Security Concern? Apparently we now have to have a gay envoy at the State Department to assuage our allies that Obama is not the reincarnation of the Mayor of Sodom. Think what it does to our enemies.

Human Doings and Human Beings

John Stewart and everyone mocking SSM opponents totally miss the point of the distinction between being and doing. We are human beings, what we do is a matter of choice- and all choices are not created equal. The women's suffragette movement sought to give equal voting rights to women, not women because they are doing something and that something sought legal equality. Race discrimination is giving equal treatment to races, not any particular race because it is doing anything. Legally the SSM movement insists on an expansion of the 14th Amendment that has NEVER taken place before and it is not supported by the text of the Constitution, nor its historic understanding, nor its legislative history. Its frankly off the wall. All Behaviors are not created equal. The founders would be facepalm dumbstruck if they learned that anyone was trying to create equality between sodomy for life and man-woman marriage because both couples are 'in love.' Just. So. Dumb.

Unbelievably Dumb.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

A repentant

Constitutional Lawyer

    reverses his position on gay marriage:

All Conduct is not Created Equal

And All States of Hormonal Balance Are Not Equally Healthy

     We all should know now that everyone has male and female hormones to varying degrees and in varying balance. The balance is delicate and changes during menapause, manopause, and puberty. There are 'endocrine disruptors' which also alter the delicate balance. Flouride in water, chemicals in cleaning products, synthetic hormones in protein food sources (meat, chicken, etc.), birth control pill synthetic hormones passing through waste into the water supply all have been identified as endocrine disruptors. Stress can trigger hormonal reactions. Breakdowns of marriage affects small children who have trauma based stress levels that can alter the hormonal archtiecture of small children and perhaps fix their resultant orientation.

    There are thousands and thousands of people who have recognized that their orientation and emotional life is hormonally triggered, as all transexuals know because they have to undergo hormone therapy to reorient themselves.

   If something is reversible, healthy or not, should it have the same protected status as a human trait like race.

   The nature/nurture debate is not over and it is not immaterial. If hormonal issues, endocrine disruptors create gayness that can be healed, does or should the Constitution make that condition equal to heterosexual procreative potential?

  The issue of adoption and children of same sex units is problematic because the child has an interest in knowing for all kinds of reasons (emotional, medical, psychological) who their biological parents are and be afforded an opportunity to when possible forge relationships with both their biological parents, one of whom may have been forced for reasons of economic depression or lack to think they could not raise their own child.

   Every human has a male and female biological parent by God's design. A same sex couple does not express that. A same sex couple deprives a child of one or the other of the gender exposure in the home.

   Because same sex couples do not have procreative capacity to themselves create children, definitionally, when they want children they are taking someone else's.  When a married hetero couple have children and the gay man leaves to marry another gay man, if that union has the same status legally as a hetero union, and the two male couple make more money than the stay at home unemployed biological mother, the court can rule that the child go where the affluence is in the 'best interest of the child' which has the capacity to emotionally destroy some women who gave up everything for their families only to be cheated on by seducing gay men.

    Everything not expressly delegated to the Federal Government under the Constitution is and should be left to the States under basic 10th Amendment federalist principles. There is no better example of where the wisdom of that supports a moral outcome.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

The Idolotry of Homo-Erotic Love

Otherwise titled "Sacred Golden Calves With Tight Asses"

I Want Therefore I Can

   That is the syllogism that runs the homosexual marriage madness. The claim is- I am gay,  I want to have gay sex, for a lifetime with a gay person therefore I can, I must, I have a right.  The reference point for the 'rightness' of the action is the person desiring it. Its right because it feels right to, lets call him Fred.

Fred is gay, Fred falls in love with Steve, Fred craves Steve's anus. The longing, the craving for all of Steve and especially how his anus feels, says Fred is 'Sacred.'
Sacred has no other reference point there then than Fred and maybe Steve.

When there is no other reference point for what is Sacred than yourself, or the Right of something than yourself, you have made an idol of yourself.
Sacred references a deity by definition- it means holiness in the realm of Godly. If your reference point for Sacred is what you feel like you have made a Sacred Cow, an Idol of Yourself and your desires.

We are building the hugest Sacred Golden Calf in the history of mankind now and putting it in the middle of the Supreme Court with its tail swishing to reveal its hemorroidal anus.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Who Would Dare to Love ISIS? (A Letter from the People of the Cross)

Let them Eat Cake

Just Made By Someone Else, Part II.

     You don't get a wedding cake typically at Safeway, Giant or the local Shoprite. A wedding cake maker is a specialty baker who knows how to tier large cakes and decorate them appropriately. There are wedding cake design contests, there are people who do nothing but wedding cakes. There are mom and pop bakeries who specialize in them.

   A wedding cake is a custom service creating a custom product, which typically involves sitting down with clients/customers and discussing their preferences for flavor cake and icing, style of decoration and topper. They can run on average between $500 and $1,000 a cake, (or more) and delivery arrangements sometimes have fees attached to the wedding reception venue location. A baker uses massive amounts of labor, time and other resources to make a huge wedding cake. The baker knows its for a wedding (sometimes even where the reception is) and knows it is for a gay wedding.

   Some Restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to people without shoes. Others without jacket and tie. Some at the beach insist you must wear a shirt to be served-no dining in your bathing suit. These are right of refusals based on objectionable conduct.

   If a gay person wants to get a special custom cake for the behavior and the baker disapproves of the conduct should that baker have a similar right of refusal to reject service based on objectionable conduct. This is not the same as a public accommodation anti-discrimination based on race because there is no conduct involved in simply being black. Neither is this like where there a public accommodation problem if a gay person wanted to get a cake and they were being denied service because they self-identify as gay, like, for example,  if someone refused to sell them a birthday cake.  A baker disapproving of a gay wedding is disapproving of the CONDUCT of the gay person or two gay people, not disapproving of the person, qua gay person.

    The constitution does not demand that all CONDUCT must be accepted by every public accommodation. Public accommodations like bars are all allowed to throw people out for being loud drunks who throw glasses against the wall. Public accommodations like restaurants can declare themselves "No Smoking" restaurants and refuse service to people who smoke. A bar can blatantly discriminate against all drunks who throw glasses against the walls. Restaurants can blatantly discriminate against people smoking.

  Even public accommodations anti-discrimination  state statutes which say you cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, can reserve the right to discriminate based on CONDUCT of those classifications. A restaurant can kick out a black person smoking or a female who comes in topless by refusing service.

A bar can discriminate against gender of a woman if she comes in topless and refuse service. A restaurant can discriminate against any black person if he comes in carrying firearms shouting he will kill someone by refusing service. Any bar or any restaurant can refuse service to a drunk disruptive patron who is a designated driver by refusing service and kicking them out.

     To make any baker liable under the anti-discrimination public accommodation rules based on their refusal to cater a gay wedding is not legally supportable because they are not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in doing that. They are discriminating on the basis of the CONDUCT of
someone with a sexual orientation.

The difference between CONDUCT (or behavior) and generic traits- race, gender, gender- oriented, national origin, classifications is the difference that makes a difference. All laws are predicated on morality attached and imputed to CONDUCT, otherwise known as BEHAVIOR.

And all CONDUCT is not born Equally.  That is not ANYWHERE in the Constitution.


Friday, April 24, 2015

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

CATHOLICISM Series - Episode 6: The Mystical Union of Christ and the Church

Donovan - Brother Sun, Sister Moon [from Franco Zeffirelli's "Brother Su...


Let Them Eat Cake

Made By Someone Else

     There are kinds of discrimination that are deemed acceptable. For example, the catholic church discriminates against anyone not officially a member in receiving the eucharist- this discriminates against Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and anyone who hasn't received catechal instruction and been confirmed in the faith or a correlate apostolic faith recognized as catholic enough. Should a Jewish Orthodox synogogue be forced to allow Non Jewish men to read the Torah at services on non-discrimination grounds? Clearly, religious convictions have to be honored in a free society.

Now imagine a state law saying the church must serve communion/the eucharist to anyone who shows up and wants it or be fined, sued for damages and bankrupted out of business. No one would abide such a law. Its deeply offensive.

So why does a Christian baker have to make a cake for anyone who shows up and wants one?
Its a private business enterprise- run by a person of a faith conviction who  does not approve. To quote John Stossel- forcing a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake 'IS NUTS.'

That baker might make a cake for a gay person's birthday or his bar mitzvah or mother's day. But a WEDDING CAKE is something that entails a baker's blessing of sorts- or participation in a ritual he finds offensive. Baking a wedding cake is a special labor of love entailing meeting with the clients to determine what kind,  what flavor icing, how many layers, etc. to make a wedding cake- and even if it were not and merely a business transaction, the art of making it for a wedding is different than for another occasion.

There are plenty of people who would not think twice about it and would want the business. There are other people who on principle wouldn't want to get near it. The state should not be in the business of forcing ANYONE to violate their conscience or principles by transacting a sort of business they find offensive on religious grounds.

Suppose a man wanted to marry his dog- should the state be in the business of forcing a baker to make a cake for the blessed union of Fred and Fido or be put out of business so NO ONE gets to eat cake?

It is perhaps tolerable that there are certain enclaves of sexual topsyturveydom- Fire Island, San Francisco, West Hollywood. But for the Supreme Court to force the entire country as a matter of universal law of the land to acknowledge gay marriage and force every enterprise to capitulate to its acceptance is beyond looney tooney, its obscene.

The Story of Jonah as Told by The Cutest Little Girl

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

What is Man

That you are Mindful of Him or Her.

      What an astounding proposition that there is One God who is 'mindful' of or actually thinks about beings he created called humans.

     So mindful in fact that he wants them to operate at maximal capacity reaching their potential.
Actions falling short of that potential and the immense human dignity of their person in God's image can be another word for 'sin.'  A non-judgmental way of describing 'sin' might just be- acts against the God designed maximal potential diminishing human dignity.

  When someone is murdered, it is an affront against the intrinsic dignity of the life of a person. When someone is prideful it  diminishes potential because a spiritual law is that the meek shall inherit the earth and God despises the proud. If you think you are already something you don't try to become better maximizing your potential.

   What of actions that are against what is called the natural "complementarity" of male-female conjugal unions? An adulterous act will diminish the dignity of the union. A gay act will diminish the procreative potential of the parties.  Perhaps God isn't condemning so much as deeply sad at the loss of potential.

    But maybe He is as condemning as in an Adulterous situation. Scripture classifies it as sexual immorality. It is scripturally considered condemned and chastised. It will be prolific in the 'end times'. People will call good bad and visa versa.

    People can be deeply in love with people of the same sex, and people are who don't have sexual urges tied to their emotional feelings or desires. These are different things. When people argue that gay people have no choice over whom to fall in love with that may be true, but it is not true that they have no choice regarding whether they allow that to flourish into full sexual contact with the other person.

    God clearly thinks people have capacity to resist Adultery or he wouldn't have outlawed it.
God clearly thinks that people can have renewed minds and not fall into what he considers a depraved state of mind in expanding emotional feelings into sexual acts with an inappropriate person. One of the same sex is deemed inappropriate. Just like someone married to someone else is inappropriate, someone under the age of consent, a close family member, etc.

   The premise that people don't have any control over sexual direction of their bodies should insult the intelligence of every thinking person. An attraction is not a sexual act. Behavior has intrinsic moral value- one way or the other.

   The law regulates behavior, and all behaviors are not created equal.


Monday, April 20, 2015

Is there any actual scriptural evidence that being gay is not an original sin?
Who decided being gay is not sin? 

It is a condition of mind, hormonal and physiological reaction all of which can be changed. So long as you think being gay is not a sin, you will seek likeminded people enforcing that it is not a sin (and not a depraved state of psycho-social hormonal malajustment conditioned from perhaps early trauma) then you will insist you have a right to it and that everyone must accept it. All hell breaks lose from the premise. 

What of all the people who once were gay and now are not? Thousands of them.  Who is to say that the feeling and physiological reaction of gay wasn't more nurture than nature? I have yet to meet a person I know is gay (there are a few I don't know i'm sure and i prefer it that way)whom I could not identify immediately with some childhood trauma or unusual situation in their upbringing that caused a psychosocial collapse from trauma which could trigger a firm commitment to seek same sex comfort. 
Here are true accounts of the backgrounds of some gay men I know or know of:
--A man's brother commits suicide, and father dies in close proximity-he will forever seek the missing brother, 
--a man's mother was a smothering phobic neurotic who wouldn't leave the house suffocating her overprotected son, he then loathes women and seeks adolescent sexual experiences with men, 
--a man's mother dies as a child and he hates her for abandoning him to a wicked stepmother, so he runs from the company of woman having only early childhood trauma associated with females,
--a man was molested by a "loving" priest as a youth and became gay, etc....
--a man's father abandoned the family at pre-school age and he became gay seeking father figures.

.It is a fair question to ask -are we coddling illness into civil rights? Homosexuality has been removed from the DSM as a mental illness for thirty years now, but is it perhaps a mental condition- 80 percent of sex being between the ears. Is it a condition of mind that triggers hormones? The testimony of all the people who found themselves 'cured' or not wanting any homosexual lifestyle any more should speak to the issue. There are THOUSANDS of people who once self identified as Gay and who now believe they have excised an unclean spirit from their minds. We don't give civil rights to practicing alcoholics to drive cars do we?

How dare anyone deny them healing?

To Be or Not To Be

Gay- that is the Question, Whether it is Nobler in the Minds to

    Renew one's mind in the Spirit.

Alcoholism is a condition not a disease. A condition can be managed, a disease must either be 'cured' or it flourishes. Some claim alcoholism and other addictions cannot be entirely eradicated if a person possesses it- the biochemical make up is permanent. Others disagree and say the biochemical composition of an alcoholic can change so the person is not an alcoholic any longer. But both models agree it can be managed by not drinking alcohol. A person who self identifies as an alcoholic can manage their condition by not drinking any alcohol. Its the premise behind AA meetings-if you can recondition yourself not to take a drink you won't manifest the alcoholism. If they do not drink any alcohol they may still be considered in their minds an alcoholic but a sober one. In the state in which they are not drinking anything they can't be considered a drunk. The difference between an alcoholic and a drunk is in behavior. A gay person may always consider themselves gay but this is a condition. There should be two different terms as there are in for "alcoholic" and "drunk" because one connotes a condition and the other a manifestation of the condition under certain circumstances. "Same Sex Attracted" is a condition which some say is curable, some not. However, Doing -Acting Gay is not the same as Being Gay. Thousands of people attest to the fact that one can condition oneself to being Not Gay Acting by Not Acting Gay. It is a manageable condition. The difference between same sex attracted people and gay acting people is in the behavior. Its a manageable condition- worth repeating. The only reason one might not wish to manage it is because they do not believe it is wrong. So the Being Gay entails an implicit moral judgment that one is entitled to be Gay and this is not wrong. There is where the Constitution has a right to make a moral judgment as all laws are predicated on morality. To claim some civil right on equal protection grounds over something that is a manageable condition intrinsically unavoidably is loaded with the moral judgment that this behavior is moral. Neither the founders intent, nor The Constitution can support that conclusion.