“The conservative "thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the ideologue is merciless.”
― Russell Kirk
Topic: Is the NFL Truly Ready to Respond from a Public Relations Perspective with Regards to an Openly Homosexual Player, or Does Michael Sam Have an Ulterior Politically-Driven Agenda?
Over the now-five years of the Obama presidency, America has experienced a great deal of social turmoil and, ergo, change, which was the 2008 mantra and platform on which the president ran. The black community has become more emboldened than it has been since the end of the 1960's upon the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King and what is credited as the official end to the Civil Rights Movement. I dare state today that due to Obama's "publicly-subtle" encouragement, the black community's old resentment, hatred and bigotry, and cultural attacks on the predominantly white population in America are the most aggressive in the nation's history. Decades of infighting within the Beltway over whether or not some form of national health care service should exist is now no longer a dream to the Democrats, but a reality - one which has now proven to be more than the party bargained for with the glitches and general failures of the system's operations characteristic of all government-based service industries.
Then there is the issue over LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual) rights. Let me be abundantly clear on one thing: what occurs within the confines of the bedroom is no business of mine nor anyone else's. On the other hand, the statute as guaranteed implicitly within the First Amendment to the "right to the free exercise of one's religion" has been breached, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the state of California, which had held the Proposition 8 as law based upon the referendum of the people that marriage was between one man and one woman, must strike down the law, which manifested a domino effect for other states to begin legalizing same-sex marriages.
My position is clear: there is no place for government involvement in the realm of defining what legally is considered marriage, and who may legally marry. Furthermore, the legal definition of any marriage involving a religious connotation should be abolished and be granted sole determination to the individuals and denominations as to what is considered by a particular faith an acceptable holy union. While there are no specific laws within the Constitution prohibiting the intermingling of church and state, there was Thomas Jefferson's landmark letter dated January 1, 1802 to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association known as the "wall of separation" which specifically guaranteed that he, as president, would not interfere in the affairs of religious institutions. While the First Amendment states what I wrote above, it does not include within the language "separation of church and state," which unfortunately complicates the manner in which that portion of the amendment is to be interpreted. We know that conservatives and especially libertarians tend to lean upon constitutional law nearly to the point of the crossed "T's" and dotted "i's," while liberals traditionally expand their interpretations to manipulate them to fit their own agenda. Lawyers tend to be notorious with regards to this practice, as due to their training within law school, they are well-equipped and very adept at locating even the more minute loop holes within legal statutes. It is therefore unfortunate that while a conservative or libertarian will adhere to the true spirit and intent of the law, the liberal mindset is to dissect and endeavor in locating parts of constitutional directives and legal statutes for unspecified nomenclature which they may use at their disposal. Those are the mindsets of the three major political ideologies in America. Depending upon which of the three one chooses to adhere, an individual will doubtlessly have no qualms if he or she is a Democrat when the Left opts to exercise what are known nowadays with the flurry of President Obama's executive orders as Emergency Powers. CQ Press states these as follows:
In times of crisis presidents often lay claim to extraordinary powers to preserve the nation. Such emergency powers are neither granted expressly to the president nor delegated to Congress by the Constitution. Instead, they are judged to reside purely in the need for leaders to protect national sovereignty and domestic order. The mandate in Article II that the president “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution and uphold its provisions is considered to contain implicitly the notion of emergency powers.
The most significant use of presidential emergency powers was made by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Faced with the secession of the southern states, Lincoln claimed numerous emergency war powers to save the Union, in the process becoming what some have called a “constitutional dictator.” The most controversial use of the emergency power in the twentieth century came in 1951 when Harry Truman, who had put the nation on emergency footing after North Korea invaded South Korea, ordered the seizure of strike-threatened steel mills to avoid potential shortages. Truman based his action on the president's inherent authority to meet national emergencies. However, the Supreme Court later ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional.
In November 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, George W. Bush authorized the use of military tribunals for trying foreigners accused of terrorist acts against the United States. Bush said that emergency powers under the commander-in-chief clause gave him the latitude to put these measures into place.
Regarding the Obama scenario, there is great division over what is considered by him to be a state of emergency since he is choosing to utilize the debate over gun control and domestic economic affairs to buttress his agenda due to the current Congress having passed so few pieces of legislation in comparison to those of the recent past. In Machiavellian terms, what Obama has chosen to do, while highly disingenuous and in violation not only of the people's trust within their elected representatives and senators to be capable of voicing their interests and yet in his 2008 campaign pledge to lean upon Congress unlike his accusations towards George W. Bush, is to secure his basis for power. In paraphrasing (but not quoting since he never directly stated this) Niccolo Machiavelli from his landmark work which laid the foundation for how modern politics would be conducted called The Prince, the ends justify the means when one is wielding power. In choosing to exercise the Emergency Powers within the implied nomenclature of the law, as it is more in tune with common law than that of constitutional legal statutes, Obama has borne fruit to what Lord Acton once stated regarding those wielding absolute power:
"Absolute power corrupts absolute."
***
The $64,000 Question: Is the NFL Truly Ready for an Openly Homosexual Player?
Above, I discussed the immense social upheaval and discord between the races and persons of different sexual orientations. This portion of the article, however, comprises strictly of the story, and the potential implications and consequences, of the actual landmark event within the world of professional football of an athlete announcing his homosexuality. The concept regarding a professional athlete's homosexuality is no longer without precedent: we know this because of Jason Collins, who announced his homosexuality April 29 of last year. Questions have resonated across the mass media controlled primarily by the Left regarding the scenario of how players, coaches, and front office administrators and owners will react to the Sam scenario. The Left in the mass media, per usual, chose to declare victory in the name of social justice and revolution on behalf of everyone regardless of true sentiments for some in comparison to others. The following article from SB Nationdemonstrates the Left's presumptions of the NFL and, by dent of this, the public's general approval of the situation:
Following NFL Draft prospect Michael Sam's decision to publicly come out, anonymous NFL executives seem unconvinced the NFL will welcome openly gay player. On Twitter, the football community willing to put its name next to its opinion tells a differently story.
Here are actual quotes from anonymous NFL executives to Sports Illustrated:
"I don't think football is ready for [an openly gay player] just yet. In the coming decade or two, it's going to be acceptable, but at this point in time it's still a man's-man game. To call somebody a [gay slur] is still so commonplace. It'd chemically imbalance an NFL locker room and meeting room."
"I just know with this going on this is going to drop him down. There's no question about it. It's human nature. Do you want to be the team to quote-unquote 'break that barrier?'"
Hm. Here is how the rest of the NFL world reacted on Twitter.
If Michael Sam truly feels proud for who he is, than why does he feel the necessity to reassure himself by promulgating over the airwaves that "I'm not afraid to tell the world who I am. I'm Michael Sam: I'm a college graduate. I'm African American, and I'm gay"? If one feels truly proud and comfortable of who he or she is as an individual, there is no need to engage in a masquerade before the general public that he or she identifies himself not as Michael Sams the Individual, but Michael Sams the Black College Graduate Gay Football Player. This perhaps is nothing more than a publicity stunt to gain notoriety and leverage for a pre-draft public relations boost, to pressure NFL franchises who may not be comfortable with his public revelation into drafting him high or higher than he would have been under the fear of the Left's and its de facto control of the mainstream media's ostracizing and demonizing the parties in question, thus destroying the/these franchises PR, the appeal among the fan base comprising partially of the Left, and the losses in revenue in both attendance and television due to the Left's influence. He currently is expected to be drafted around the Third Round. The timing for Sam to be the latest LGBT activist to enter the public realm was coincidentally impeccable, and he may have played his cards like a heart from hell.
The bottom line is this: What one chooses to do in the bedroom is that person's business and no one else's. However, one should not use conspicuously disingenuous methods to advance his or her own agenda to bolster both his or her professional career due to riding the coattails of political intrigue and expediency nor to encourage individuals to identify themselves by accomplishments and sexual preferences rather than what all people should do: to claim that one is a person of character, integrity, but most importantly, of soul and faith in God or whatever higher power to which one adheres (if any at all).
***
Conclusion: The Official Interview of Michael Sam Announcing His Homosexuality
A sincere face amid saddened eyes. It appears as if Sam is pained and troubled by his revelation. But if he is being sincere, why would he opt to announce to the world of his choice in sexual preferences when all people should be looked upon the same if the average individual simply minded his or her own business? As previously stated, what occurs in the bedroom is no one else's business but each individual's. But more to the point, why did he choose to make the announcement when he did? The timing is most puzzling and intriguing because the NFL Combine is rapidly approaching and then the Draft is late in the spring. While the ayes have had it according to SB Nation, which again has adopted a very liberal perspective and assuming all people and NFL personnel will accept this admission piecemeal, the following article from CBSSports.comtakes a diametrically different approach to my assertion that Sam's choice to open the door to outspoken homosexuality may cost him dearly in the draft due to coaches and club general managers disliking distractions on their teams:
Feb. 9, 2014, will one day be remembered as it should -- as the day in which a young man described himself with pride and honesty.
But make no mistake, it is also the day that Missouri defensive end Michael Sam's stock in the NFL Draft began to drop because he announced he was gay. He was already sliding due to concerns over the dreaded 'tweener label -- with some scouts viewing him as too short for defensive end and a project to convert to stand-up linebacker following an inconsistent week at the Senior Bowl.
NFLDraftScout.com has Sam ranked as the No. 110 overall prospect. An initial drop to 160 from 90 on Monday morning was part of a comprehensive adjustment in the rankings leading up to next week's scouting combine that generated movement among hundreds of prospects. In all, 65 of the top 350 prospects were affected by the rankings update, and Sam was never intended to drop past No. 110. The bottom line is Sam's announcement will affect his position on the draft boards of some teams, but NFLDraftScout.com currently projects him as a third- to fourth-round prospect overall, with all factors considered.
As noted by CBSSports.com's Jeremy Fowler, Sam's teamates at Missouri learned of his secret in August. Rather than allow Sam's private life to divide the locker room, coach Gary Pinkel earned Coach of the Year consideration for his team's 12-2 record, which included their first-ever SEC East xhampionship and a No. 4 overall ranking to end the season -- the highest ever at Missouri.
Sam's teammates and coaches never spoke of Sam's personal life because it washis personal life. On the field, Sam's play spoke for itself. He was named Co-Defensive Player of the Year in the best conference in college football and earned comparisonsin this player profileto one of the NFL's most feared pass rushers.
If teammates knew about Sam's homosexuality, you can bet NFL scouts did, as well. And yet they didn't announce to the world that Sam was gay.
NFL clubs work hard to avoid distractions, which figures to hurt Michael Sam's stock. (USATSI)
The respect shown by Sam's teammates, coaches and the NFL to this point has been commendable. The NFL issued a statement shortly after the news broke of Sam's courageous announcement that read:
"We admire Michael Sam's honesty and courage. Michael is a football player. Any player with ability and determination can succeed in the NFL. We look forward to welcoming and supporting Michael Sam in 2014."
A statement by the league is a step in the right direction. The mostly positive feedback provided by anonymous NFL personnel in stories written for every sports outlet in the country shows that the league and its members are closer to welcoming a gay player than ever.
But issuing support behind a logo or the cloak of anonymity is far different than welcoming Sam (or other homosexuals) publicly.
In conversations with high-ranking front office officials since 2001, I've been told that a player's sexuality would have no bearing on his draft status. If, as Pete Prisco summarizes here, the player can play, he'll have no problem landing and sticking in the NFL.
The problem is that while Sam is a good prospect, he's not a great one. While starring as a defensive end for the Tigers, Sam was asked to play linebacker at the Senior Bowl and he struggled with the position change, showing limited flexibility and fluidity. This fact could limit him to the defensive end position in the traditional 4-3 alignment, further complicating his stock.
And while NFL teams may be more willing to accept a gay player in 2014, there remains a bit of a don't-ask-don't-tell policy. By announcing his personal lifestyle, Sam made it public. And with that announcement, Sam is inviting the media and by extension the public to follow his journey into the NFL.
Sam's homosexuality isn't the point. There are gay players in the NFL now and almost surely teammates, coaches and front office executives who know about them. But by coming out, Sam turned a very bright spotlight on himself.
And the reality is teams would rather the bright lights shine on their superstars on game day. Any club drafting Sam would add distractions for players, and teams normally work to avoid any distraction.
As the media glare intensifies at the Scouting Combine and the weeks leading up to the draft, Sam will be viewed as more and more of a distraction. That fact -- not Sam's homosexuality -- is what will cause him to slip into the late rounds or perhaps even entirely out of the draft.
***
(Above: Michael Sam's announcement of his homosexuality.)
Was Sam genuine in his honesty regardless of the timing? Or does he have an ulterior motive akin to Chris Kluwe, whose choice to become a political activist within the NFL has cost him his job with the Minnesota Vikings where, despite his ranking as the franchise's all-time leading punter, he was considered as an average but not spectacular talent, his lawyer is now threatening a class-action lawsuit due to his very vocal activism? (See the May 6, 2013 article from ESPN.comto reacquaint yourself with regards to the Kluwe case.) It is most interesting that Sam opted to schedule his announcement within the months preceding the NFL Combine and the Draft, and the implications are two totally different scenarios based upon how one chooses to perceive them. For a person with a History degree and minor in Political Science such as myself, my instinct based upon historical precedent and political tendencies are he could receive a significant boost in his draft stock due to his controlling the tide of public opinion with the liberal media championing his cause, as well, again, his use of this platform to launch a political activism career with regards to LGBT rights. On the other hand, he could also drop precipitously in his draft stock due to the fear of major inner and outside distractions, which football coaches - particularly those in the NFL - detest greatly. Regardless of what is to occur, this situation was destined to occur at some point. What the implications will be regarding how the NFL reacts, which is far more intensity-driven than the NBA with Jason Collins, remains intriguing to witness over the television and Internet sports sites and in how young Michael Sam chooses to conduct himself now that he is a singular figure in the league.
There have always been homosexuals in the world of sports, but only in the past year have two openly admitted publicly. If one's honesty with his or her sexual orientation entails the situation upon which Jason Collins embarked - dating Carolyn Moos and even was engaged to her until he called it off in 2009, all while she never suspected his true sexual orientation (See New York Daily Newsdated May 1, 2013 for specifics) - what can we expect from Sam? So far as I have researched, I have not found any accounts of a past girlfriend for him. If he has no ill-intent, all the better.
To each their own, and live and let live, I say, unless one is using his or her plight to gain power.
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
The Great American Apostasy Courtesy of Government and the Entertainment Industry
Christian Contemporary musician Natalie Grant attended the 2014 Annual Grammy Awards ceremony as a nominee for the award of Best Christian Music Song based upon her chart-topping hit "Hurricane," and Best Gospel/Contemporary Christian Music Performance for "Alive (Mary Magdalene)," which she co-wrote with her husband, Bernie Helms. To her horror, she would be attending the most unholy gathering of the music entertainment industry's elites mocking Christianity, a phenomena which has become more posh over the past generation as left-wing moral decadence has sewn its seeds into the public's moral fabric and subconscious. There were at least two articles posted on my Facebook news feed divulging this information, with one being of course one of the conservative sites to which I am subscribed. But only of my friends, his name irrelevant but is a man I have known since high school and is of deep faith, posted a link to the story behind Mr. and Mrs. Helms' most unsettling night. I had heard about the mock "weddings" by Queen Latifah. Atop of that, the entire selling point behind the vast majority of the entertainment industry is that "sex sells," and this has been true since the initiation of the Sexual Revolution during the 1960's.
It truly astounds me, however, that while those who are considered parts of the population demographic "with the power" to accept any and all forms self-expression unconditionally regardless of how offensive to one's own core religious values or customs or be considered a racist or bigot, those within the loud minority who now dictate both government policy and the direction pop culture now will forever take refuse to acquiesce in kind, and instead mock those within the Christian religion, but champion all others. Even Islam, the so-called "religion of peace" which has reported be responsible for more than 270 millions slaughters over is nearly-1,400 year existence, is championed, and
(Above: Julie Borowski, libertarian media political figure. You may access her Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/JulieBorowski)
Julie Borowski writes to ask you:
"Young Americans for Liberty (great organization!) asked for our response to the State of the Union. Here's mine. What's yours?"
(Above: Borowski holding a sign written upon a sheet of paper about Obama's failed economic endeavors.)
My Response to Ms. Borowski's Public Inquiry:
If President Obama is truly serious about real economic growth, he will cease this farce of proposing -- or rather, signing illegally hundreds of executive orders -- more and more socialist solutions which have never worked in America, never worked in Western Europe including with our greatest ally, Britain, whom the president has alienated as he has the majority of the world -- and ultimately collapsed the Soviet Union and its satellite states beneath its iron curtain, which Ronald Reagan destroyed many years before it might have actually occurred.
President Obama's economic policies are really not even considered true policies, but rather are "anti-growth" and too concerned with "spreading the wealth" as he told Joe the Plumber in 2008. But what I want to know is since the president is intent upon redistributing wealth as once occurred in the former Soviet Union and Maoist China while, in theory, the rich were less rich or their clout was derived from being advanced to a high government position, did this make the poorer more economically-affluent? No! Of course not! Rather than creating the concept of all being wealthy under the rule of law, what Obama, as well as those totalitarian rulers and those in Western Europe, really implemented as part of their artificially constructed economies of scale was, and is, make the wealth less economically affluent while here domestically, Obama hands out tax breaks to those such was within Hollywood or major billionaire software, investment, and media moguls who support, fund, and campaign commercially for the Democratic Party. Yet, the middle class suffers because they are having their tax rates hiked substantially beyond the majority's (the bottom 98%) capacity to pay. When that occurs, those within the lower middle class bordering upon the poverty threshold slip below it, and there then is more who are impoverished than before. The poor who were already living in poverty never experience a true improvement in their quality of life because while they may be handed a government-subsidized pay increase via welfare, Obama will eventually raise minimum wage, the prices of goods will then artificially be increased substantially, and rather than providing an answer to mitigate the situation for the poor and middle class, all levels of income except for those within Obama's good graces will suffer, poverty will increase rather than the contrary, and economic growth will actually slip into a major double or triple-dip recession with the inevitable steep rising inflation due to artificially inflating pay wages which will inflate the price of goods and services... unless Obama foolishly decides to engage in price fixing, which failed miserably during the presidencies of Nixon through Carter and nearly collapsed the economic infrastructure due to the artificial price of goods and services not meeting the true costs of production and for purchase from their manufacturers, especially when profits did not manifest even with the proposed greater volume of buyers.
Expanding government to employ more workers only to deny them Obamacare health care coverage is low. As Obamacare, a far more insidious form of socialized medicine than what Britain and Canada have due to its nigh inaccessibility to the general public who then are taxed heavily for not signing up for the program, is essentially linked to the IRS, NSA, Homeland Security, and of course DHS. The American people's rights to privacy as implied by the Third and Fourth Amendments have been destroyed, and we as a people now reside in a police state where every input we place within an electronic medium is tracked, and those in dissent with the powers-that-be are targeted and often find themselves in legal trouble as has Dinesh D'Souza.
My final words here are as follows. People need to take care in reading the fine print of what every candidate claims he or she will do to improve the nation. When you listen to a charismatic politician such as Obama from Chicago, a city well-renowned as being the most corrupt in the U.S. due to more than 100 years of Democratic Party domination and the policies and illegal ties to the local mafia as part of the Machtpolitik practices and he (or she) chants "Yes, we can," all while his hypnotized audience blindly follows his every word; when celebrities such as Oprah and Kanye West declare him "a god," or when Obama travels to Egypt and is hailed based upon a hadith within an Islamic text as "the Mahdi" or "the promised warrior" by Arabic news agencies, there is danger. Obama narcissistically proclaims he is a divine figure with regards to his reach for great power, and I fear that before his last day in office has concluded, the world may find itself amid a cataclysmic conflict involving the Middle East, Russia, China, France, and likely the United Kingdom as there are military and economic alliances forming as we speak.
Below is my reply to a member of the American Far-Left who attempts to vindicate former Clinton Vice President Al Gore 's assertion from 1999 that by 2014 -- this year -- all of the world's polar ice caps would disappear. Clearly, this never happened, did not really come close to happening, and would probably take centuries or many millennia to occur in full.
Nothing pleasures me more in life than two things aside from being in the company of my beloved family members and closest friends: to write my poetry, for which I have a blog just for that; and to embarrass members of the Left due to their delusions of grandeur. And while this argument apparently continued well-beyond my reply to one Paul White and I never caught the remainder of it because I probably was busy writing poetry (which is what I spend most of my free time doing for pleasure), I think I stated very clearly my thoughts on the matter.
Kelsey Riffey shared ForAmerica's photo.
In 1999, Al Gore said that the polar ice caps would disappear by 2014. It’s 2014 and the ice caps are still there. Where’s Al’s apology?
Paul White actually you need to do your home work, summer 2013 saw the first pure liquid summer in the arctic. For the first time commercial shipping is possible in the northern reaches. Greenery is growing in places not before possible. Longer warming periods and record high temps in the region are a reality. 2014 will see 15 gigantic glaciers completely disappear.
Kelsey RiffeyThey also discovered volcanic activity there as well. I believe that climate change is due to a natural pattern that has occurred many times in nature. It was warmer during the middle ages than today. This cannot be blamed just on men in general. Al flies around on his luxury jets and he tells us that we shouldnt drive our cars. The has its own natural greenhouse due to Carbon without it the temperature drops almost 60 degrees. It is naive to think climate will not change.
Jonathan Henderson I suppose that in the past 214 years since the official beginning of the First Industrial Revolution in Europe that mankind has melted damn near every glacier and iceberg in the world, Paul, am I correct? What if I said to you that half of meteorologists and climatologists believe the entire phenomena behind man-manifested global warning to be untrue and impossible? The fact that for all time, the earth has experienced untold numbers of climate changing trends renders Al Gore's premise unproven and illogical since he is neither a damn meteorologist nor climatologist! I guess, though, that for the Left, the fact that over 48% of meteorologists and climatologists believe the theory that man-made global warming is false and lacking in any validity whatsoever is the inconvenient truth for you.
I find it both intriguing and interesting how over the past 40 to 50 years, government has passed untold numbers of pieces of legislation that were signed into law by Democrats and Republicans in the White House alike to curb "the tide of man-made global warming," and all were expected to make a dent in the situation, or what fear factors some of the nuts at Greenpeace wish to perpetuate. The federal government changed the manner in which the engines and exhaust systems of vehicles would forever be built in order to drastically cut back on carbon monoxide emissions; instead, the Left continues to claim to the contrary that we have further damaged the environment despite these new laws, and what is their answer? More legislation, more taxation, higher fuel costs, and higher prices for vehicles due to the new mileage guidelines required to be in effect by 2020. And I haven't even begun to discuss the failure of the Democrats to support the building of the Keystone XL pipeline to create thousands of new jobs; to largely end our reliance upon foreign oil from the Middle East; and furthermore, by decreasing our reliance upon Middle Eastern oil, we would then have the ability to largely leave that most unstable region that has never borne any fruit from international endeavors but more terrorism and the continued slaughtering of their own and our troops.
It is akin to the issue with mass poverty in the inner cities and rural areas, Paul: you can tax the rich and the middle classes beyond their capacities to pay and spread the wealth to the poor and lower the income gaps between the rich, middle, and sub-poverty line classes, but at the end of the day, all you have done is that you have made certain that the poor are poorer so longer as the rich and the middle class are less affluent. The wealthy have less with which to create jobs for the middle and lower classes if the conditions were to be legally allowed to be right to manifest them without socialism; the middle class is earning less money and many begin to slip below the poverty line threshold; and those who already were impoverished remain impoverished in order for the Democrats to receive their votes under the guise that they will continue the Robin Hood means of spreading the wealthy while making everyone else and the actual impoverished either poorer or still poor. If you continue to maintain the status quo with the poor, continue providing for them subsidies and creating more public expenditure programs as bureaucracies, of course they will vote for the Left; and what a policy! The middle class, the backbone of America, is being made poorer, and there are less millionaires in relationship to the total U.S. population today than there have been in decades. At the end of the day, it does not matter one damn bit if there are large gaps between incomes; what does matter is that all levels of income are better off than they were under the previous administration, with the people earning more in total income along with the rate of inflation continuing to decrease, the private sector thriving, and the greater focus on private small businesses in the inner cities and rural areas as opposed to erecting more public housing for the sake that the officials you champion have created more poverty. If the people are better off financially at all levels of income, have better jobs than before, have the capacity with all of these factors to buy what they need and spend on discretionary items due to a very low inflation rate, the liberal policy of using the already-historically failed ideals behind Keynsian economics will die in a blaze of futility.
At the end of the day, Paul, all Robin Hood really did was rob from those whom had taken away the hard-earned wages of the people who earned them and returned them to their respective owners.
(Below is a pair of dialogues between two individuals of diametrically opposite extremes with regards to their perspective on government role in marriage and America's tolerance towards those of other faith opposed to Christianity. My take is not strictly a conservative perspective, but also very heavily libertarian in context. If you know me well from the nearly seven or eight months I have periodically posted articles here, you will see that my positions are almost obsessively-compulsive in their extreme consistencies. That being said, enjoy reading the two very entertaining dialogues akin to the era of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister of Great Britain when she schooled Neil Kinnock so completely and on a regular basis during the Prime Minister's Question Time.
(The one, the only "El Rushbo"!)
Rush Limbaugh's Post:I don't care what somebody's sexual orientation is. I don't care what their race is. I do not group people that way, nor do I want to take advantage of people by making them groups or victims. I want everybody to be as self-reliant as they can be, be as educated as they can be, 'cause that's how we're gonna have a great country.
#1.Darwin Gutierrez:Wow. Can't believe this actually came out of a republican's mouth!
My Reply:Believe it, Darwin, because a poll fairly recently administered recorded that 52% of Republicans favor some form of same-sex union. I myself believe the government should completely renounce itself from all authority over the issue of marriage, which is what Oklahoma is doing, and rightfully so. If a set sectarian religion wishes to abstain from recognizing same-sex marriage due to its religious beliefs amid its interpretations, that is their right as part of the First Amendment portion pertaining to "the free exercise of one's religion." There are religious sectarians however who do and will recognize same-sex marriage, so if said couples truly wish to be recognized in holy matrimony under God, they may find any church they so wish to perform the ceremony.
However, for the Left, this really is a completely foreign concept! They don't like it when the people enjoy liberty! It might mean that by cutting government out of marriage entirely that the Marriage Tax would therefore be forcibly dissolved! What would Obama and the Democrats do without squeezing every last penny they may from the people's wallets? Oh the marvels of political upside one may derive when a real solution involving human freedom and liberty is posited as a solution!
#2 Melissa Jones Callis:NO, Rush. Absolutely NOT. The way this country became great was that GOD was the LEADER of the country. People prayed to, and worshiped, HIM. Not Allah, not Mohammed, not Buddha. Jehovah, the one true God, is the One who can make this country flourish.
My Reply:Melissa, America was indeed founded upon the principles God set forth. In fact, the nation was founded for the reasons of God, glory, and gold, or what a high school history teacher will teach to the class upon the first day of instruction. Along with this concept was the manner in which you choose to worship, and that is guaranteed within the First Amendment's clause for "right to the free exercise of religion." As such, every person is beautiful under the Judeo-Christian God, even those sinners. God flooded the world due to the gross presence of sin in the world, and the world had already fallen to its Death upon Eve opting to fall into temptation by eating the forbidden fruit. At that point, according to which denomination or sectarian you adhere, all humanity was sentenced to die due to all being born of Sin. Adam and Eve manifested Sin because of the serpent, and it would take a messianic figure to save humanity for future generations.
What I want to know with regards to Christian dogma from you, Melissa, is who gets to decide which people are to be forgiven for Sin if he or she has given his or her life to Christ? Is it you? It is true that The Bible stated that is "an abomination" for one man to lay with another, presumably having sexual intercourse, and I believe having researched this issue thoroughly, there is no true consensus with regards to this issue biblically. For your benefit and to convince you that I am not lying, I will place before you the link to 25 references with regards to the issue of homosexuality. There are numerous interpretations::
(Edit from February 4, 2014: Below will be each verse from The Bible commenting on the subject of homosexuality.)
Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 294 helpful votes
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV / 274 helpful votes
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Romans 1:26-28 ESV / 242 helpful votes
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Romans 13:8-10 ESV / 223 helpful votes
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Isaiah 56:3-5 ESV / 202 helpful votes
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
Matthew 19:11-12 ESV / 189 helpful votes
But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
1 Timothy 1:10 ESV / 125 helpful votes
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 103 helpful votes
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Mark 10:6-9 ESV / 88 helpful votes
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV / 87 helpful votes
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
James 4:12 ESV / 71 helpful votes
There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
1 Corinthians 7:7-9 ESV / 63 helpful votes
I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Romans 1:32 ESV / 62 helpful votes
Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Hebrews 13:1-25 ESV / 61 helpful votes
Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”
John 8:7-11 ESV / 56 helpful votes
And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
1 Timothy 5:8 ESV / 52 helpful votes
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Timothy 1:10-11 ESV / 51 helpful votes
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
Galatians 5:14 ESV / 50 helpful votes
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Galatians 3:28 ESV / 50 helpful votes
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Matthew 22:39 ESV / 48 helpful votes
And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Genesis 19:1-38 ESV / 47 helpful votes
The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
Matthew 7:12 ESV / 46 helpful votes
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
1 Kings 14:24 ESV / 46 helpful votes
And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.
Jude 1:7 ESV / 43 helpful votes
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Judges 19:22 ESV / 22 helpful votes
As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, worthless fellows, surrounded the house, beating on the door. And they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.”
************************************************************************ My favorite verse to one and all is John 8:7-11, which is perhaps the important line of the entire with regards to how one treats his or her fellow man if that individual is found to be in violation of a codified law, or in this case, Sin:
"Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone at her."
- Jesus Christ, The One True Savior and Lawgiver of Mankind
Sin is sin; God considers the murder of another to be akin to murderous thoughts in the mind. If you have never sinned, Melissa, or if anyone else is perfect, please behoove one and all by letting others know of your perfection. If all sin is the same in the eyes of God, does that not make homosexuality the same? And furthermore, as homosexuality is a sin and Jesus stated that one should not judge others as each individual is his or herself a sinner, what right does the layperson, you, have to socially ostracize and castigate individuals when that is true? The Bible is filled with those 25 verses which in some manner regarding the biblical laws regarding homosexuality, which indeed suggests it to be punishable by death, and what Jesus said about sin in general, which essentially states to not judge those who are in every relevant manner equal to you.
If you cannot accept what Jesus stated to be true and you assume all other figures to be correct instead, would that not entail that you are listening to false prophets since the majority of these verses imply some form of severe, draconian punishment as these other mouthpieces of The Word of God are only finite and fallible? I suppose if this is true, you really are not a good Christian. Jesus forgives and will save everyone who accepts Him into their lives. And, as a person who would deny others the legal right to not be judged based upon one's lifestyle in the bedroom and amid the amorous activities, but also because they do not worship as do the majority of Americans, you are judging them based again upon what Jesus stated for followers to not do. All people have prejudices, and that is natural. To act upon them is something else entirely. Government has no place in any form of regulating religion, how one worships, and furthermore, the rite of marriage.
